I have a nephew at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. The Conflict Panel is representing him, he has tried to fire them. And they laugh at him, his Constitution has been violated, he is slow and does not understand anything that is going on in the court room; last week the Conflict Panel went down to Rancho Cucamonga and made my nephew sign something. The Conflict Panel told him that if he did not take a deal for 18 years that he would get life; he did not murder any body, and want happen, happen when he was 16 years old; but did not file charges until last year; after he turned 18 years old/

If anyone can tell who to contact are what to do, please let me know.

Bosygrandma@hotmail. Com Thank you Date: 1/8/2011

Catherine Smith

As United States citizens California residents we voluntarily give up rights for the protection of the state thus one might conclude that such injustices compromise the functionality of state power and can contribute to the lack of public and private confidence we are all experiencing. I am in shock at what its being discovered, this is very scary and it is not just one persons problem it is all of our problem. We must uphold our civic responsibilities and protect the U.S. Constitution and demand that the District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Public Defender in San Bernardino County obey the laws guaranteed to protect each one of us equally under the Supereme Law of this Land and that no state has the right to deny. Things do not change… people do! One Love

Good Night.

On behalf of my fellow United States Citizens, California residents, the good of the general public, and national social and economic progress I submit the following comment.

I am a former NYLC Scholar, college graduate, and independent researcher. After accompanying a friend to his case proceedings at the San Bernardino Superior Court Central District and witnessing the most unusual administration of justice I have ever seen, I decided to do independent research in the form of informal case studies and observations.

My research has extended from 2008 to the present, including on some of the dates listed above.

Initially attempting to simply observe, I was taken back when informed by the bailiff that “no family, friends, or anyone” would be allowed in the courtrooms during various case proceedings. This seems to be the standard in certain courtrooms such as Department s16/s16a and most recently in Department s6.

I proceeded to witness time and time again the violation of people’s 6th Amendment Right that of which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land to have Public Criminal Trials. The first time I tried to enter the court room I was dressed casually and had my request to enter denied.

Eventually, I made the decision to return to court this time dressed in a suite equipped with my brief case and glasses having made the decision I was going to assert on behalf of a defendant and the various other cases scheduled on calendar my right to be present as a member of the general public so that I could document my research on the over burdened calendars of San Bernardino Superior Court. Some other general areas of interest I was researching included human heuristic errors in judgment and confirmation bias. Never did I think I would stumble upon having all I was taught to believe in as an American citizen when I was growing up destroyed in the process.

After asserting such rights in part with my request I was finally allowed in an empty court room where various criminal and civil/traffic cases were being heard to my dismay. However, others who did not assert such rights continued to be turned away.

Please allow me to state that I am well aware of the hectic court case calendars, the juggling of Judges/Commissioners/Retired Judges, the court construction, and all the many other reasons provided to the public as the basis for the nature of operations at the San Bernardino Superior Court. Understandably, I initially complied with their requests to remain out of the courtroom, however upon one of the defendants purchasing of court case dockets and his having identified “clerical” and “judicial” errors recorded contrary to his court room experience I realized that in not having been allowed to have any members of his family or friends or anyone from the general public for that matter present at the time his case was heard it would be very difficult for him to prove his claim to truth, have his dockets corrected, and enjoy his privileges in part with his right to the due process of both substantive and procedural law protected by the constitution based on the types of “errors” recorded on his official documentation.

Once again never did I imagine that I, a person who was not on trial nor had a pending case at San Bernardino Superior Court could be effected in the manner of which I have by witnessing a series of events I have found unexplainable and unjustifiable that seem to coincide with the aforementioned complaint.

I was present as a member of the general public on December 9, 2009 and after witnessing almost the exact type of sequence of events in a different case, receiving no responses from the Executive Office after having contacted Mr. Michael A. Ramos, and various other court administrators in search of answers and understanding for what I had seen, I decided to go to the Federal Bureau of Investigations where I was unlawfully arrested by a West Hollywood Sheriff while awaiting to speak to an agent about the public corruption, obstruction of justice, and my inability to locate answers to document in my research accurately and truthfully. I had my brief case that contained privileged information about the events I witnessed in San Bernardino County confiscated and not documented in part with the intake of my bulk property. I was arrested on an alleged “warrant” under an incorrectly spelled name and to date have not been allowed to view the warrant. My arrest has been sufficiently unexplainable and unjustifiable and I am still fighting to secure my record and employability to date. I have been devastated but worst yet silenced in fear after making my decision to try to contribute to “change”.

With a broken spirit I have failed to return to conclude my research follow up with a case study I have been following. I have never returned to the FBI and it seems no once cares that the violation of such rights continues to occur.

But today September 8, 2010 I managed to gain the courage to return to court with the case I had been permitted to document and research. I could not help but speak up and I now feel it is my ethical obligation as a witness to the perversion of justice to write what I know no matter how scared I am.

Once again today, I witnessed members of the general public, friends, family members in Dept S6 of the San Bernardino Court be turned away as cases were heard by Bailiff R. Sharpe (Sheriff). I witnessed Mr. William Gale (Bill) of the District Attorney’s Office pressure someone into signing an agreed continuance not in front of a judge rather in company of Sheriff Sharpe and of course not in the court room but in the hallways of San Bernardino Superior Court. With the permission of the defendant I requested to read the document that was being requested to be signed and I was humiliated in front of approximately 17 people in the hallway. I was yelled and instructed to “go to the end of the hallway”. I was asked if I was an “attorney” and I clearly stated no. I had no choice but to walk away and the defendant was informed that it would be in his best interest if he did not return with me to his next court date. He proceeded to sign a document and was not provided a carbon copy for his records inclusive of once again “clerical errors” such as an incorrectly spelled name amongst other issues.

In the past when I have questioned how dates have changed on “official” court in a case I was reviewing I was told by Public Defender Catherine Woollard that the court has and I quote “Magical Powers”. I have asked court clerk supervisors such as Sheri about such errors and was told “we are not to question a Judge”. Unfortunately, those magical powers are at the expense of the violation of our beloved United States Constitution and the defendants who are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty and proven either guilty or innocent fairly or at least I’d like to think in a court room and not in the Superior Court hallways.

The following people have been contacted and have been informed of the pattern of practice that seems to be apparent in the county of San Bernardino: Supervising Deputy Public Defender Mr. Mark Shoup, District Attorney Michael A. Ramos, Public Defender Doreen B. Boxer, Honorable Retired Judge Rex A. Victor, Honorable Judge Elwell, Deputy Public Defender Catherine Woollard, Public Defender Andrew Moll, Public Defender Amanda King, District Attorney Lisa B. Muscari, District Attorney William Gale, District Attorney Michael Seleyem, Public Defender Ciara Cameron, Public Defender Kiarash Feyzjou; no sufficient response has been provided. I have witnessed other cases in part with District Attorney Robbins as well.

Issues: I am concerned that if the defendants are being denied their right to public trials at the San Bernardino Superior Court, criminals who may rightfully deserve to be behind bars may have their cases brought back to court and may be let free as a result of this miscarriage of justice and what seems to be wrongful ignorance by court administrators. This may also cause the public undue danger and innocent people who may not deserve to be behind bars may be having their civil liberties violated in part with unjust incarcerations, and all of this while the public is flipping the bill on an already burden hectic and over worked system in the State of California.

I’m sure I do not need to bring any attention to the current situation of our State budget either. Also, the people who are failing to administer justice appropriately and who are contributing to the obstruction of true justice are going to cause those hard working court administrators and judges undue complications and subject them to investigations they should not have to endure should this type of conduct reach the attention of the mainstream public. And most importantly, the U.S. Constitution itself does not deserve to be trampled on as the Fundamental Ideals, Beliefs, and Values that our country was founded on should not be forgotten no matter what the circumstance may be as it is the heart of our nation and root of all opportunity. Universal distrust seems to be at stake and it’s time to speak up about this and work together to fix it. It is all of our responsibility no matter how seemingly hopeless things may seem and no matter what individual troubling circumstances each one of us may be facing in our personal lives.

Lastly, I am concerned with the mock student trial system at the San Bernardino Court and what is being taught to the future officers of the court and administrators of justice in this seemingly broken system of government. Who is accountable for the manner of which they are being instructed and learning? (Example: Certified Law Students)

In conclusion, I would like to state that I am not a perfect person and have myself over come many struggles of my own including having learned from making many of my own mistakes but none the less I encourage anyone and everyone with college degrees without college degrees, well spoken not well spoken, well written not well written, to speak up and protect the Constitution of the United States of America in the County of San Bernardino.

My arrest and my decision to continue to write is a direct reflection of the choice I made when faced with a very simple question of Courage or Compliance?

Thank you kindly,

Respectfully
Yours
United States Citizen, California Resident

P.S. My apologies if I have not been very clear it was a long day, I did not have the time to edit this post this evening but I wanted to write it well it was fresh in my mind.

I am not an attorney nor can I give anyone legal advice. However, I am willing to listen to your stories and consider your experience in part with my research. You can contact me at: kc.indie.res@gmail.com
thank you

With this immediate affair she had with Ramos it appears she was in the mixed with someone before getting hired. Of course that would not be a surprise either.

What is sad about all this, is I doubt even an attorney from outside the County who knows all this would put up much of a fuss on behalf of his client.

NOW I see why so many attorney’s hate to work in this County.

BTW, here’s how the current PD conflict policy works: As soon as you are placed on probation and walk out of the courtroom door, you are no longer a public defender client. What if you have a question about your plea bargain or want to calender the case for probation modification, who you gonna call? The PDs, of course. But, let’s say that you witness a crime a week later, when you are on probation for selling crack…this would not be a conflict for the PD’s office, and if it goes to trial, there’s no problem with another PD insisting that you are lying, i.e. committing perjury, i.e. violating your probation that will send you to jail…no problem with that at all. This impacts a huge number of cases and really is all about $$$, and those who dare voice opposition to the conflict policy will be shot.

There is no doubt that a PD can handle the cases the cheapest, b/c they do such a higher volume than any other entity. They should definately open an alternate PDs office, but Boxer is just mimicking what LA and SD did a long time ago, and in the interim forcing all of her attorneys to ride the ethical line and occassionally look the other way. As a result, the conflict panel gets considerably less cases than they used to and Spring and Carter have indeed stooped to using “investigators” to do attorney work to make up for the all the $$$$ they are losing. I know many PDs have witnessed this first hand and reported it to their supervisors, and yet it still happens everyday. And to think that the defendants think they are getting better representation because the conflict panel is “private attorneys” and they meet with an investigator right away. It really is a sham (and a shame!). Most people still are better off with the PDs, but the BOS needs to set up an Alternate PD to alleviate these ethical concerns that many in the office secretly have.

Something tells me though, that quality competent criminal defense representation isn’t high on the agenda for most politicians…or else Boxer would have been appropriately axed in 2006, and her current reign of terror would never have started. Hopefully, Deveraeaux will have the sense (and blessing) of the board to do what Uffer wouldn’t. I know Uffer also didn’t want to admit his huge mistake in hiring her in the first place, as I recall an article in the press about him bragging how great he was for hiring the first female PD…only days before the notorious Lake Arrowhead incident. He’d have looked like a bafoon if that news broke then. No doubt he and Ramos and the then BOS conspired to bury it!!

A REAL Board of Supervisors would have forced out such a dishonest piece of work long ago.

REMEMBER THIS OVITT, KIRK AND BIANE: yOU think youve saved yourself from Ramos’ wrath by this phony coverup. you have FOUR MORE YEARS (if Ramos is reelected) to worry…every day…what will Ramos do if I dont give him everything he wants. No, idiots, saving Ramos will end up costing you OVER and OVER again. You should have just done th3e right thing and let the voters take their course..they would have finished your problem off for you. But no, you had to demonstrate how politically stupid you really are. NOW you will have years to be looking over your shoulder. You have no one to blame but yourselves. And maybe the voters will finish you off!! Now that would be progress!

Beefo is not going to do anything for anyone except himself. He’d sell a cop down the river not only to the DA, but to the Sheriff’s Department brass in a heart beat.

We can prove that. He is useless and has been for 5 years.