Friday, December 12, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Nye Frank Racing: Prosecutor First Amendment applies to rights
Nye Frank Racing: Prosecutor First Amendment applies to rights10/01/2008
District Attorney Rod Pacheco Receives Governor’s 2008 Crime Victim Advocacy Award | The Inland Empire News Blog
District Attorney Rod Pacheco Receives Governor’s 2008 Crime Victim Advocacy Award | The Inland Empire News Blog.
Mike Rushton has seen the pictures and heard the tape. Rod Pacheco personally has been told of the situation. Mike Rushton solved it by closing the case as exceptional. And then told me I would have to go to court to get autopsy xrays, film, lab work which is needed for autopsy review.
This is a case where Mike Rushton and Rod Pacheco know Lee Frank cannot afford to go to court and fight the county. Mike told me I would have to go to court but when I visited the public defender office they told me he gave me a impossible task as they never charged Ty with anything and so there is not the documentation to go to court.
Sheriff Recording of Phil Reddish
Download phil_and_brian_floyd.m4a
Posted at 02:08 AM in corruption | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Riverside Sheriff- Phil confidence in Coverup help
Download 2inv. Martinez Int w Phillip Reddish cont.mp4
phil_and_brian_floyd.m4a
2.0 MB
Posted at 08:20 PM in Rod Pacheco | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: auto racing, Homicide of Nye Frank, Judge Mike Rushton, Nye Frank, race_dezert.com, Racing, Riverside County, Rod Pacheco, seniors, Sheriff Sniff, victims
Rod Pacheco & Riverside County Victims Advocate in DA Office Crimes?
Is spending $500,000 a year on a department that refuses to provide services for the tax payer in that county legal?
Who do you go to when you have a complaint? Every office I go to they say the DA is the one to handle that. What if the DA is the one doing the CRIME? Is it a crime? I don't know.
I wrote the justice department and the questions they asked on the form for the Justice Department answered yes to all 7 out of 8 possibilities and they wrote back denied.
Is it a crime when you represent the City of Riverside as a employee of the county and state that offers a service but not to every one in that group?
What about a elected official? Rod Pacheco is a elected official, so is Sheriff Sniff. Both are aware of the situation and have continued to cover it over. What about the County Supervisors?
Why is it that Chief DA Mike Rushton would make the decision to prevent a senior to have the records needed to review a autopsy that does not meet the state guidelines? The records are needed to be able to get justice and get the truth and go to court. . The Public Defenders office told me what Mike Rushton told me I needed was impossible to get.
The county supervisors are aware of it. They did not address the issue they just sent a letter Denied.
What about a service that you help conspire to prevent the rights of the citizens of the county?
District Attorney Rod Pacheco Receives Governor’s 2008 Crime Victim Advocacy Award | The Inland Empire News Blog
District Attorney Rod Pacheco Receives Governor’s 2008 Crime Victim Advocacy Award | The Inland Empire News Blog.
Mike Rushton has seen the pictures and heard the tape. Rod Pacheco personally has been told of the situation. Mike Rushton solved it by closing the case as exceptional. And then told me I would have to go to court to get autopsy xrays, film, lab work which is needed for autopsy review.
This is a case where Mike Rushton and Rod Pacheco know Lee Frank cannot afford to go to court and fight the county. Mike told me I would have to go to court but when I visited the public defender office they told me he gave me a impossible task as they never charged Ty with anything and so there is not the documentation to go to court.
Sheriff Recording of Phil Reddish
Download phil_and_brian_floyd.m4a
Posted at 02:08 AM in corruption | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Riverside Sheriff- Phil confidence in Coverup help
Download 2inv. Martinez Int w Phillip Reddish cont.mp4
phil_and_brian_floyd.m4a
2.0 MB
Posted at 08:20 PM in Rod Pacheco | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: auto racing, Homicide of Nye Frank, Judge Mike Rushton, Nye Frank, race_dezert.com, Racing, Riverside County, Rod Pacheco, seniors, Sheriff Sniff, victims
Rod Pacheco & Riverside County Victims Advocate in DA Office Crimes?
Is spending $500,000 a year on a department that refuses to provide services for the tax payer in that county legal?
Who do you go to when you have a complaint? Every office I go to they say the DA is the one to handle that. What if the DA is the one doing the CRIME? Is it a crime? I don't know.
I wrote the justice department and the questions they asked on the form for the Justice Department answered yes to all 7 out of 8 possibilities and they wrote back denied.
Is it a crime when you represent the City of Riverside as a employee of the county and state that offers a service but not to every one in that group?
What about a elected official? Rod Pacheco is a elected official, so is Sheriff Sniff. Both are aware of the situation and have continued to cover it over. What about the County Supervisors?
Why is it that Chief DA Mike Rushton would make the decision to prevent a senior to have the records needed to review a autopsy that does not meet the state guidelines? The records are needed to be able to get justice and get the truth and go to court. . The Public Defenders office told me what Mike Rushton told me I needed was impossible to get.
The county supervisors are aware of it. They did not address the issue they just sent a letter Denied.
What about a service that you help conspire to prevent the rights of the citizens of the county?
Prosecutor First Amendment applies to rights
« How to inhibit outrage -Tactics of officials to prevent justice | Main
10/17/2008
The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address
Riverside County denies this right -The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption."
"Freeway Therapy" for Whistleblower Deputy D.A. The Ninth Circuit's opinion today in Ceballos v. Garcetti, no. 02-55418, is a fascinating read about how Deputy D.A. whistleblowers are treated, about how the First Amendment applies to the workplace, and about sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption." And because the defendant district attorney was performing a county function (as opposed to a state function) when he took the alleged actions with respect to the plaintiff, neither the district attorney nor the county were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Permalink
Posted at 04:48 AM in privacy rights, DA not allowed immunity | Permalink
Technorati Tags: constitution, Da, daima calhoun, district attorney, false evidence, mike rushton, nye frank, privacy rights, prosecutor, riverside county, rod pacheco, rod pacheco
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3131254/34620395
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address:
10/17/2008
The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address
Riverside County denies this right -The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption."
"Freeway Therapy" for Whistleblower Deputy D.A. The Ninth Circuit's opinion today in Ceballos v. Garcetti, no. 02-55418, is a fascinating read about how Deputy D.A. whistleblowers are treated, about how the First Amendment applies to the workplace, and about sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption." And because the defendant district attorney was performing a county function (as opposed to a state function) when he took the alleged actions with respect to the plaintiff, neither the district attorney nor the county were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Permalink
Posted at 04:48 AM in privacy rights, DA not allowed immunity | Permalink
Technorati Tags: constitution, Da, daima calhoun, district attorney, false evidence, mike rushton, nye frank, privacy rights, prosecutor, riverside county, rod pacheco, rod pacheco
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3131254/34620395
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address:
Monday, September 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
