Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

mnql1 · Aug 8, 2009

Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

From AnonOrange on ESMB:

Here are the latest developments regarding my case of the attack by the Scientology security guards at Gold Base.

Yesterday, Graham and I were at the Murietta court house to ask for a trial continuance for various reasons, including some new evidence we found regarding a survey (paid for by Scientology) that was done at the location of the Gold Base attack. The DA was pleased with our findings, to say the least.

This is the FOURTH DA assigned to this trespassing case, which has not even started yet. The first DA said in court that this case was "too high profile" and passed it to another DA. The second DA, originally told Graham that she was very eager to take the case, but she is no longer on it. A third DA replaced her for a brief time. Incidentally, that third DA was from Hemet, so that got me a little nervous. This musical chairs of DA's could just be a coincidence of people being assigned to different cases, but it seems a bit much.

So now we have a fourth DA, a French speaking man that was very pleasant to interact with. Graham and I found him willing to listen to everything we had to say.

He told us, and Graham got this in writing (below) that all the data we gave the Hemet sheriff and the long recorded interview we had with a Hemet investigator got DESTROYED. Luckily, we still have everything and we re-submitted the info to this new DA.

Part of the evidence surrounded a supplemental report that was written by a Hemet investigator. Here is the report and please read the last paragraph, which may be why this got destroyed.

EvidenceDestroyed.JPG

SupReportPage1.jpg

SupReportPage2.jpg

Here is Graham's latest filing, well worth reading:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
(Southwest)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

AnonOrange

Defendant.
Case No: SWM080760

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE COURT CLERK PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2008 HEARING HEREIN; DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY IN SUPPORT THEREOF, EXHIBITS THERETO.

Trial Date: August 11, 2009

(Subject to Motion to Continue)

DATE: August 7 , 2009

TIME: 8-30 AM

DEPT: S-104

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on _____ the ___ day of August, 2009, at 8-30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department ___ of the Riverside Superior Court, South West Division, at 30755 Auld Road, Murrieta, CA 92563, Defendant through and by his counsel of record herein will and hereby does move this Honorable Court for an order that the Clerk of this Court provide the Defendant (upon payment of any usual and appropriate fees) with a copy of the transcript recording of the hearing in this matter on December 3, 2009.

THIS MOTION is made pursuant to California Penal Code section 1054-1054.7 and upon the grounds, inter alia, (1) transcripts of public court proceedings are available to the parties by operation of law and equity; (2) the proceedings in this matter have [apparently] been electronically recorded; (3) it is in the interests of justice, the defendant’s discovery rights, and the defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights that the Defendant be provided with a copy of the electronic recording of the proceeding on December 3, 2008 herein; (4) the Court clerk has advised Defendant and his counsel that a Court order is required for a copy of the electronic transcript of the hearing herein on December 3, 2008; and (5) that this Court has an inherent discretion to control the proceedings before it.

THIS MOTION is made upon the further grounds set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Graham E. Berry, Defendant’s Reply and any Rebuttal, and upon all other matters in file herein or that may be presented to the Court at the hearing of this motion.

Dated: August 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

__________________
GRAHAM E. BERRY

Attorney for Defendant AnonOrange

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is one of a number of four vaguely related cases involving citizen’s arrests by Church of Scientology guards at the Church of Scientology International (“Gold Base”) compound at Gilman Hot Springs, near Hemet, CA. The arrests and notices to appear in two of those cases were dismissed and withdrawn without any appearance being necessary; the citizen’s arrests by Scientology executives and guards had clearly taken place on public property. Another two cases, including this one, are currently pending. Paragraph 4, Declaration of Graham E. Berry sworn August 6, 2009, and attached hereto (“the Berry Declaration”). In connection with the other pending case, that citizen’s arrest also occurred on public property. Since these arrests were made the St. Petersburg Times has run a multi-part series on recent top Scientology deputies’ accounts of a reign of terror, violence and unlawful confinement at Gold Base which is also the location of well documented human trafficking and forced labor abuses that are the subject of much Internet reporting, personal stories and outrage. See generally, Scientology: The truth rundown | Tampabay.com St. Petersburg Times Earlier, the Los Angeles Times did a similar series. See, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...3.storygallery , error-page.

II. APPLICABLE FACTS

The official reports and the contents of numerous court records bear rulings and evidence of many frauds upon different courts by various corporations that are part of the Scientology enterprise and certain of its executives and lawyers. For example, Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. who has attended proceedings herein was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 266 page stipulation of evidence between the United States Department of Justice in the case of U.S. v. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F. Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1979) (see generally, the explanation in Exhibit A hereto). Mr. Moxon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator for providing false handwriting exemplars to the F.B.I. In 1993 the Church of Scientology made a sworn representation to the I.R.S. that no-one involved with Operation Snow White and/or the U.S. v. Hubbard and related cases remained employed by or part of the Church of Scientology. However, then as now, Mr. Moxon was and is the lead attorney for Scientology and officed within its infamous Office of Special Affairs. See generally, the explanation in Exhibit B hereto and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology International (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 628. Elliot Abelson, Esq., another Church of Scientology International in house attorney, has also been subject to allegations and evidence concerning frauds upon the courts and is himself the subject of extensive adverse comment about such matters as a few pages printout from over 6,000 references demonstrates (Exhibit D). Berry Declaration, paragraph 5.

On October 26, 2008 the Defendant was one of a group of protestors who were lawfully protesting the Church of Scientology’s alleged human and civil rights abuses, criminal conduct and frauds outside the Church of Scientology’s International Base (aka Gold Base) at Gilman Hot Springs. Sheriff’s officers were present most of the day and they had encouraged the Defendant and his companions, at the stated request of Church of Scientology officials, to take their protest down the road to the exact unfenced road side location where the Defendant was later subjected to a citizen’s arrest (which Defendant contends was unlawful in all of the relevant circumstances). Although the Scientology base is surrounded by a high razor wire fence which is clearly to keep people in as well as out, the particular location at issue is unfenced roadside land that exceeds one acre in size. Scientology claims, by adding the linear length of the unfenced land and the linear length of the security fenced land together, that this land exceeds one mile in linear length and that therefore they need only three signs along about one mile of Highway 79. That is an artifice. Unfenced land is unfenced land not fenced and unfenced land combined. Accordingly, Penal Code section 554.1 (b) requires “posting signs along or near the exterior boundaries at intervals of not more than 600 feet, and also at each corner, and, if such property has a definite entrance or entrances, at each such entrance.” In the case at bar, the attack upon the Defendant took place at one of such entrances. The entire unfenced land exceeding one acre did not satisfy the requirements of statute in that there was only one sign which did not conform to the specific size and other requirements of the Penal Code and placed well back from the exterior boundaries as to suggest that the private property line commenced at their location and not way forward where the attack actually occurred. This itself created the opportunity for the mistake of fact, mistake of law, accident and entrapment that will be asserted as affirmative defenses at trial herein. At trial, if the Defendant takes the stand, he is expected to testify that he believed that the property line was parallel and adjacent to the one small no trespassing sign placed some 25 feet or more beyond where any sign posting of any private property line should have occurred. On an earlier day he had photographed the No Trespassing sign so he knew exactly where it was located and where he [mistakenly] thought the adjacent property line was. In addition, “under Penal Code section 602 subd (l), the word “occupy” was intended to mean a nontransient, continuous type of possession, and to commit a trespass under the statute, some degree of dispossession and permanency must be intended.” People v. Wilkinson (1967) 248 Cal.App. 2d Supp 906, 56 Cal.Rptr.

Earlier in the day the Defendant had actually hidden in his car and had filmed an attempted interference with the vehicle by a Scientology security thug. Intermittently during the afternoon of October 26, 2008, as the videotapes show, the Scientology security guards had been repeatedly stopping and disappearing behind the Defendants parked and unattended vehicle. Shortly after the Deputy Sheriffs departed, and as the protestors were themselves preparing to depart, a Scientology security guard again appeared to interfere with the Defendant’s vehicle (parked near the location of the incident at issue herein) and then set off a roadside flare in tinder dry high fire risk conditions. Alarmed and concerned, the Defendant gave chase to ascertain what and why the Scientology guard was doing. Just before he did so one of the security guards may have said Defendant was trespassing but at this point few could reasonably contend that Defendant was intentionally and knowingly trespassing. He was clearly within the roadside and flood plain easements and the single vaguely visible no trespassing sign was perhaps as much as 100 foot beyond the edge of the unfenced approx. 1.5 acre parcel of land and the location of Defendant at that time.

If he takes the stand at his trial, the Defendant is expected to testify that at all times, and in all of the circumstances, he reasonably believed he was on public property or a public highway easement, and he had no intention to either trespass of to commit a battery before he was attacked and held face down in the dirt while serious permanent injuries were being inflicted upon him with the knee of one the assailants being stomped into his back and neck in flagrant disregard of proper police methods when tackling and hog-tying an arrestee. Having chosen to make a citizen’s arrest on an improperly posted unfenced property line, without any warning and opportunity to leave, the Scientology guards with their own history of unprovoked attacks on people (some of whom will be properly called to testify at trial), assumed the duty to adhere to the applicable standard of care, the proper and safe arrest practice and procedure, and the strict statutory requirements in these particular circumstances. Parenthically, this is why most legal writers caution against making a citizen’s arrest and risking the resulting potential liabilities.

Accordingly, while the Defendant was trying to ascertain why the Scientology security guards had again messed with his car and then set off a roadside flare in high risk fire risk conditions, three Scientology security guards drove up, brutally jumped and attacked the Defendant without any warning, held his face and neck into the dirt with their knees causing permanent injury, and causing him to reasonably fear imminent death (and he reflexively must have bitten one of the hands that was holding his entire face hard in the roadside dirt). Later, they cuffed the Defendant with plastic cuffs and arrested him for trespassing (on unfenced roadside flood plain land). The Defendant was subsequently handed over to Deputy Sheriffs for processing.

The Defendant was then transported to jail in Murrieta where he was held in custody for most of the night despite his injuries resulting from the attack (without warning by the Scientology security guards and those injuries are now permanent). Berry Declaration, para. 6.

As all this was occurring a car parked nearby and a nearby ambulance immediately departed the scene. Parenthically, it is noted that none of these full time Scientology staffers assigned to duties as ‘security’ guards qualify as Peace Officers pursuant to statute even though the Defendant was initially charged with battery upon a peace officer. The videotape of this horrifying incident has been widely watched around the world by tens of thousands.

Moreover, the arrest of the Defendant, and the failure to arrest and charge the three Scientology security guards, has been condemned by many around this State and nation and indeed the world. In addition, these matters have been the subject of public comment and outrage before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and communication to the Sheriff himself. Indeed, the Sheriff was personally provided with a copy of the same video given Sheriff’s Detective Judge, expressed his concerns at what he was told about the goings on and the San Jacinto Sheriff’s station, said he would look into it and soon thereafter relations between the protestors and Sheriff’s improved. In particular, the involvement and statements of the Chairman of the Riverside Board of Supervisors (Mr. Jeff Stone) has become the subject of extensive public comment and controversy. Scientology related payments to his political coffers are now being examined.

The Supplemental Police Report attached hereto as Exhibit E is particularly instructive in regard to what really went down in the high desert roadside dirt on October 26, 2008 and as the extensive videotaping confirms. However, to date the Riverside District Attorney’s Office has either refused or failed to act (prosecute the “alleged victims” herein) as the Defendant (and real victim here) has “complained” and the Sheriff’s investigating detective has recommended. See last sentence of Exhibit E.

The videotapes of the attack and its aftermath conclusively demonstrate that contrary to Penal Code section 602 (l) (1) there was absolutely no “request to leave the property” [at least while the Defendant was actually upon any unfenced private properly posted property] and there was absolutely no opportunity to leave any properly posted property before Scientology security guards with a well documented history of violence themselves (as even revealed on the Internet) attacked him, hog tied him and kneed him into the ground ignoring any semblance of a lawful or proper arrest.

In connection with other official proceedings, the Church of Scientology International has asserted that there is now, and has been for many years, a 100 foot highway easement as confirmed by various official documents and “conditions of use” etc. As official records they may well be determinative of the issue as a matter of law. Anyway, using the 100 foot easement argument and the official records the Scientology “Gold Base” was able to acquire, and is acquiring, additional turn in lanes and median strips. The principles of judicial estoppel now preclude the Scientology enterprise from asserting otherwise.

However, there is no need to reach any of those arguments because the survey map and papers the People have produced in discovery itself states that it is a 100 highway easement. Whether it is a 100 foot easement or a 60 foot easement, where the Defendant was located exactly upon or near the perimeter of the land, is critical. Even if it were only a 60 foot highway easement any trespass/encroachment, if there was one, would have been less than five feet. In all the circumstances of this specific intent statute there is reasonable doubt and non-conformity and breach of statutory requirements to such an extent that a diligent prosecutor could clearly conclude that a reasonable jury would not convict upon the available evidence. In addition, the Defendant has and will assert the well founded affirmative defenses of mistake of law, mistake of fact, accident, judicial estoppel, necessity, entrapment, self-defense and involuntary spontaneous reaction to the fear of imminent death.

III. ARGUMENT

It is black letter law that, as a general principle, the Superior Courts of the State of California maintain and make available either written or electronic copies of the proceedings taken before them. For example, Penal Code sections 858-883, 4812.

In the instant case, there remains the very real possibility that the Defendant was subjected to an additional 24 hours of jail confinement as a result of a fraud upon the court committed by an officer of the court representing the Church of Scientology International which is the real party in interest herein.

Indeed, as with Scientology’s well known framed arrest and prosecution of journalist Paulette Cooper (until the fraud was discovered through documents seized in the F.B.I. raids; see Exhibit F hereto), it now seems clear that this entire incident was a set-up deliberately staged to occur after Sheriff’s had conferred for hours with Scientology security guards and officials (within the high security Scientology compound) and then departed just before Defendant and the other protestors were preparing to leave.

In fact, expert testimony at trial may be given to show that this operation was being micro-managed by Scientology leader David Miscavige in accordance with certain Scientology practices such as “Fair Game” which provides (consistent with Penal Code section 422.55) that anyone who is not a Scientologist in good standing, and who takes any action contrary to the interests of Scientology, may be utterly destroyed by any means possible without any discipline of the Scientologist involved. The Church dehumanizes these opponents by calling them Suppressive Persons. See generally, Fair Game (Scientology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Scientology enterprise claims that in 1966 it cancelled Fair Game against Suppressive Persons (for public relations reasons) but a host of subsequent Scientology copyrighted documents show that this is not the case, in 1991 the Church of Scientology argued in Wollersheim that “Fair Game” was a protected religious doctrine and practice, and a number of California courts have found the policy to still be in effect today. For example, Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 636, and Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App. 3d 1060, which upheld an affirmative defense of justification by a fearful Suppressive Person.

The official reports and the contents of numerous court records bear rulings and evidence of many frauds upon different courts by various corporations that are part of the Scientology enterprise and certain of its executives and lawyers. For example, Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq who has attended proceedings herein was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 266 page stipulation of evidence between the United States Department of Justice in the case of U.S. v. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F. Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1979) (see generally, the explanation in Exhibit A hereto). Mr. Moxon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator for providing false handwriting exemplars to the F.B.I. In 1993 the Church of Scientology made a sworn representation to the I.R.S. that no-one involved with Operation Snow White and/or the U.S. v. Hubbard and related cases remained employed by or part of the Church of Scientology. However, then as now, Mr. Moxon was and is the lead attorney for Scientology and officed within its infamous Office of Special Affairs. See generally, the explanation in Exhibit B hereto and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology International (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 628. Elliot Abelson, Esq., another Church of Scientology International in house attorney, has also been subject to allegations and evidence concerning frauds upon the courts and is himself the subject of extensive adverse comment about such matters as a few pages printout from over 6,000 references demonstrates (Exhibit C).

On December 3, 2008 the Defendant AnonOrange made his first appearance herein. Defendant, his counsel and a number of others associated with them did not hear or recall any Order that the Defendant stay away from, and not even photograph, any particular Scientologists outside this Courthouse as opposed to staying away from the location of Gold Base generally. In fact, no stay away order at all is reflected upon the Court’s December 3, 2008 Minute Order herein (see Exhibit D). It is for this reason an electronic copy of the Court hearing for that day is requested. Those present at the hearing, and their notes, indicate that at the December 3, 2008 hearing the Court merely said “Stay away from Gold. Just Gold only.”

On January 29, 2009 the Defendant made another appearance herein. At that time Scientology in-house attorney Elliot Abelson addressed the court and contended that there had been a stay-away from victims order and that after the December 3, 2008 hearing the Defendant had violated that order by taking a photograph of the person who had brutally attacked and injured him without any warning whatsoever and a senior Scientology executive (who had made the other two dismissed improper citizen’s arrests) and who was not a victim herein by any definition. At this hearing the Defendant and his counsel could recall no such order to stay away from any alleged victim. However, upon attorney Abelson’s material [mis] representations the Court revoked Defendant’s O/R bail at about 9 A.M. on January 29, 2009. See Exhibit D. In the ordinary course the Defendant should be have been released upon the bail bond within an hour and not another day, particularly in the circumstances herein.

However, despite the Defendant having the credit card and other financial resources to post bail immediately, along with the nearest and a willing bail bondsman, the Defendant was held for another day and night in custody before authorities would process the necessary paper work and release him. In the course of securing his release on bail the Defendant had to provide cash in the amount of $1,250.00, $250.00 of which he loses even when he satisfies his terms of bail. This type of processing and related detention outrages has occurred in other Riverside County cases involving anti-scientology abuse and crime protestors such as in the Keith Henson case.

The Defendant and has counsel have requested a copy of the December 3, 2008 hearing transcript from both the court room staff (he referred them to the Clerk’s office) and the staff in the Clerk’s office. The staff in the Clerk’s Office advised Defendant and his counsel that although an electronic copy of the December 3, 2008 proceedings herein would have been made they could not process a request for a copy of the electronic tape without a court order.

The Defendant should not require any specific reason in order to obtain a copy of a transcript of a judicial proceeding concerning him, particularly as here, one that subjected him to a second day of jail in the outrageous and disturbing circumstances of a false arrest by a citizen claiming to be a peace officer and having a long, verified and documented list of violence and running down people trying to escape from the Scientology gulag. Indeed, this is even verified by a separate police report involving the actions of one of these guards on another day.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the relief requested herein should be granted and an order issued to provide the Defendant with the December 3, 2008 transcript herein.

Dated: August 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

__________________
GRAHAM E. BERRY
__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

So the evidence destroyed was pictures of the "victim" injuries and recording of "victim" interview. I'm assuming this is only related to the assault and biting victim... I can't imagine these were destroyed. Maybe they are tlaking about AO's submitted photos of his injuries.

Also, I'm sure CA has record disposal laws, and you can often collect money for illegal disposed of records. I don't know what the implications are for court evidence (if that is what this was).

Ann O'Nymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

So, it seems that the guards could be prosecuted. Sounds nice.

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Did the 4th DA give a reason why this was destroyed? What DA were you dealing with at the time this occured? Did they know it was destroyed?

Ann O'Nymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Anonymous;963766 said:

Did the 4th DA give a reason why this was destroyed? What DA were you dealing with at the time this occured? Did they know it was destroyed?

FTR AO is not around here. Therefore, direct questions might remain unanswered.

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

You know, if I were the judge I'd just ask if there would be opposition to it from the other party, and if there isn't I'd just order the transcripts released. That said, the memorandum provides a good summary and is not too long.

timthephoto · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

hope scn lose their most obnoxious guard.. who would confine all the SP's at gold if he were to be jailed?

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Evidence destroyed.. are they kidding? *shakes head*

CaptainAdderall · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Sponge · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

mnql1;963731 said:

From AnonOrange on ESMB:

Anonymous;963766 said:

Did the 4th DA give a reason why this was destroyed? What DA were you dealing with at the time this occured? Did they know it was destroyed?

Yeah, that's certainly a big "why"?
Was it "I accidentaly your evidence" out of stupidity or pretend stupidity or was it done on purpose (under some loophole?)?????

CaptainAdderall · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

I'm trying to imagine the kind of accident it would take that would destroy a Video Recording, Photos, Statements, and a DVD....
and I'm a big fan of the Final Destination series... so its normally not that hard...
but i'm drawing a blank for this one

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

CaptainAdderall;963823 said:

I'm trying to imagine the kind of accident it would take that would destroy a Video Recording, Photos, Statements, and a DVD....
and I'm a big fan of the Final Destination series... so its normally not that hard...
but i'm drawing a blank for this one

Indeed ^^

amaX · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

CaptainAdderall;963823 said:

I'm trying to imagine the kind of accident it would take that would destroy a Video Recording, Photos, Statements, and a DVD....
and I'm a big fan of the Final Destination series... so its normally not that hard...
but i'm drawing a blank for this one

I'm with the Cap'n on this one.

Four DA's and now destruction of evidence? WTF?

Sponge · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

CaptainAdderall;963823 said:

I'm trying to imagine the kind of accident it would take that would destroy a Video Recording, Photos, Statements, and a DVD....
and I'm a big fan of the Final Destination series... so its normally not that hard...
but i'm drawing a blank for this one

Fat cop sat on it?

View attachment catherine_fraser_tommy_davis_demand_citizens_arres

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

This only makes the cult look more snarky and makes AO 's case look even better

celtg · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

did the DA's dog eat the evidence?

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

celtg;963848 said:

did the DA's dog eat the evidence?

yeah, maybe the dog was forced to eat the evidence or the cult would have snuffed the DA's dog like the last judge

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

If OSA really has a stat about "getting critics to disagree with each other" or some such, it is pretty hilarous because they'll be going "WHOOO STATS ARE UP YEAHHH!" while the cult is sinking below them.

As for the evidence being destroyed, perhaps they were decieved into thinking the case was closed. Evidence space is limited. Thank goodness for copies.

Uncle Bruce · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

This I believe, is very big. This case has turned into a real hot potato no one in their right mind wants to get near. Say you'r the DA. First of all, it's a bullshit case you will lose, but in less the cult drops the charge it won't go away,and they can't just dismiss the charge without a good reason. If it went to court and the defense presents it's case there will be evidence on the record that the cult may have committed a crime. You will now be pressured to investigate the cult, and God forbid, bring charges againest them. On top of that you have Nathan Bacca watching you like a vulture and political enemies with their ear to the ground. Add to that the likely hood of a civial case you will be party to and it's a real game of "drop the soap" around that office.

PS If you were a DA with any balls,(or ovaries), you would see it as a challange.

Consensus · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Uncle Bruce;963860 said:

This I believe, is very big. This case has turned into a real hot potato no one in their right mind wants to get near. Say you'r the DA. First of all, it's a bullshit case you will lose, but in less the cult drops the charge it won't go away,and they can't just dismiss the charge without a good reason. If it went to court and the defense presents it's case there will be evidence on the record that the cult may have committed a crime. You will now be pressured to investigate the cult, and God forbid, bring charges againest them. On top of that you have Nathan Bacca watching you like a vulture and political enemies with their ear to the ground. Add to that the likely hood of a civial case you will be party to and it's a real game of "drop the soap" around that office.

It's definitely worth looking into how the evidence came to be destroyed. The recent admission by Rinder (or was it Rathburn?) that evidence was destroyed in the Lisa McPherson case seems relevant. If it weren't for a history of destruction of evidence, you'd have to meet a very high standard of proof to charge any individual or organization. With a pattern of behavior established, however, prosecutors may pay closer attention and be more open to prosecution (though, in the end, there still needs to be sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law).

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea what impact such a ruling would have on AO's case. Since he seems to have the missing evidence backed up, I'm inclined to think it wouldn't change anything. You can't convict someone of one crime just because you have evidence of them behaving badly (in a way unrelated to the crime they're in trial for). There may be some difficulty re-submitting the evidence, as I have no idea what the procedure for that would be, and the evidence AO kept was not in the custody of the authorities, y'know?

/captain obvious

Uncle Bruce · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

I'm not a lawyer either, I was just looking at all the possible ways this could turn into a real big bag-A-dicks.

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Consensus;963861 said:

It's definitely worth looking into how the evidence came to be destroyed. The recent admission by Rinder (or was it Rathburn?) that evidence was destroyed in the Lisa McPherson case seems relevant. If it weren't for a history of destruction of evidence, you'd have to meet a very high standard of proof to charge any individual or organization.

Destroying evidence you have in your hands is a litte bit different than getting evidence in police lockup destroyed though - the latter is harder to do, physically. (Nothing is hard for those guys to do morally - they'll steal candy from a child if they think it helps Scientology.)

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Lets not forget the "missing" files when they went to court in France way back when
Matter of fact, we should lump all the cases of missing or destroyed evidence in one place

Mutante · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

RightOn;963875 said:

Matter of fact, we should lump all the cases of missing or destroyed evidence in one place

And take a backup

Obi-Wan-anon · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Let's just hope they don't use this whole "missing evidence" ploy to question the back-up evidence that AO and Berry have.

They'll try the whole "chain of evidence" routine, and try to say they can't tell if the back-up has been tampered with.

AFAIK, the cult doesn't need the missing evidence to try AO for the trespass - but AO needs the evidence to prove the cult stooges weren't professional.

RaddaRadda · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Obi-Wan-anon;963892 said:

Let's just hope they don't use this whole "missing evidence" ploy to question the back-up evidence that AO and Berry have.

They'll try the whole "chain of evidence" routine, and try to say they can't tell if the back-up has been tampered with.

AFAIK, the cult doesn't need the missing evidence to try AO for the trespass - but AO needs the evidence to prove the cult stooges weren't professional.

Well...then they lost their case, I should think.
AO didn't tamper with the evidence held by the county. AO doesn't need to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. And has evidence of his own.

It being thrown out would save money for AO and Graham...but will not add precedence for future protests at GOLD. I think the cult wants to maintain the murkiness of the law regarding this. So losing by "the evidense was lost, so case is thrown out" is better for them than losing via "AO was not tresspassing".

So I hope the trial continues for that reason. The cult gets away with so much (at Gold, and elsewhere) because of no concrete legal statements about boundaries that local law enforcement must follow.

The cult got away with a lot at the Henson trial that they won't be able to do now. Like the defense not being able to mention scientology.

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

RaddaRadda;963905 said:

Well...then they lost their case, I should think.
AO didn't tamper with the evidence held by the county. AO doesn't need to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. And has evidence of his own.

Note that the evidence missing is in the case against the security clowns, not in the case against AnonOrange. At least that's how I understand it.

Consensus · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

RaddaRadda;963905 said:

Well...then they lost their case, I should think.
AO didn't tamper with the evidence held by the county. AO doesn't need to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. And has evidence of his own.

It being thrown out would save money for AO and Graham...but will not add precedence for future protests at GOLD. I think the cult wants to maintain the murkiness of the law regarding this. So losing by "the evidense was lost, so case is thrown out" is better for them than losing via "AO was not tresspassing".

So I hope the trial continues for that reason. The cult gets away with so much (at Gold, and elsewhere) because of no concrete legal statements about boundaries that local law enforcement must follow.

The cult got away with a lot at the Henson trial that they won't be able to do now. Like the defense not being able to mention scientology.

Yeah, I'm a little confused (and don't give enough of a shit to investigate)
Is there a case going forward against AO? Is it civil or criminal?
Is there a case going forward against the scifag guards? Is it civil or criminal?
Which of these cases was the evidence destroyed in?
And then there's speculation about a hypothetical case against whomever was responsible for the destruction of the evidence.

These are not all a single legal entity; each is considered on their own, and convictions will come if and only if there's evidence sufficient to the criteria (Which changes between civil and criminal).

It'd be nice if this was just a big 'Who should get fucked, AO or Scientology?' basketball game, and if the destruction of the evidence counted as a 3-pointer for AO's team. But that's not how the law works.

And I'm interested in knowing the way it *does* work, and which cases are going on, and so on and so forth. And I plead ignorance beyond that.

Uncle Bruce · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

IANAL but I do know that anytime evidence is lost it's a serious matter and if destroyed it is criminal. The DA should be concerned since a couple of cases like this and all his evidence in other cases could be challenged.

Sponge · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

NOTE: According to OP dox...

"from the Riverside DA - Investigation report" said:

"Out of the items listed as evidence on the supplemental report, item #1 and item #2 have been destroyed as of 7-1-09"

DESTROYED:
1. Recording of interview with victim (in evidence)
2. photos of victim's injuries (attached)
[SIZE="1"](see edit) [/SIZE]3. DVD of incident (taken by witness) (in evidence)

NOT DESTROYED:
[STRIKE]3. DVD of incident (taken by witness) (in evidence)[/STRIKE]
4. Written statements by witnesses (attached)

Just a reminder as to what items of evidence we are talking about.

EDIT: Update from AO on ESMB

A clarification. In the list of the 4 items on the supplemental report, item #3 was ALSO missing, but the DA failed to mention that. Luckily, I had an exact copy of that DVD, with all the documentation, raw photos/videos. I just gave the DA a new copy.

xenubarb · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Destroyed evidence in a Scientology related case?

facepalm.jpg!

Who'da thunk it!

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Isn't Jeff Stone's son employed in the DA's office somewhere close?

RightOn · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Anonymous;963964 said:

Isn't Jeff Stone's son employed in the DA's office somewhere close?

hmm... does the plot thicken?

Anonymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

More stolen files?
Joseph Yanny -ex lawyer for the cult

"He says that his Century City law firm was burglarized four times and that Scientology-related documents turned up missing"

The Scientology Story - Part 6C: A Lawyer Learns What It's Like to Fight the Church

Sponge · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Anonymous;963964 said:

Isn't Jeff Stone's son employed in the DA's office somewhere close?

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/249-goldbase/what-tangled-web-they-weave-riverside-43714/

From the article in the OP of that thread......

Supporters such as Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone say Pacheco is a "shining star" with potential to make a career on the national political stage. They applaud Pacheco's uncompromising view of the law, his pursuit of justice for crime victims and repeated calls for stiffer punishment for criminals and gang members.

"I believe Rod will go down in history as being one of our finer district attorneys," said Stone, whose son Jason Stone works as a deputy district attorney in the prosecutor's southwestern Riverside County office.

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff said collaboration and a willingness to form partnerships with other law enforcement leaders are hallmarks of Pacheco's administrative style. Sniff's wife, Jennifer, is a forensics technician in the district attorney's office.

"He is extremely focused on integrity issues and doing what's right rather than doing things that are expedient," Sniff said.

Pacheco's talents as a prosecutor are well-known. He successfully prosecuted five death-penalty cases when he was a deputy district attorney.

Jason and Jeff Stone

Sponge · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Anonymous;963982 said:

More stolen files?
Joseph Yanny -ex lawyer for the cult

"He says that his Century City law firm was burglarized four times and that Scientology-related documents turned up missing"

The Scientology Story - Part 6C: A Lawyer Learns What It's Like to Fight the Church

Lawyer's Michael Flynn and Ford Greene have been subject to infiltration of their offices.

Googling pulls up walls of text. Affidavits with various admissions. I don't think there were any convictions though.
Mr.Berry, and I believe Smurf, will be able to give you the salient points.
It's all very interesting history but I'm not sure how much value it has other than to slow the case down and force judges and attorneys to wade through more crap.
Operation Snow White is the only one of value because it was WIN and people actually got thrown in the slammer for it.

PAnonA · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Sponge;963985 said:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/249-goldbase/what-tangled-web-they-weave-riverside-43714/

From the article in the OP of that thread......

Jason and Jeff Stone

Oh so exploitable.

TypingChimp · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Sponge;963831 said:

Fat cop sat on it?

View attachment catherine_fraser_tommy_davis_demand_citizens_arres

Which fat cop, though?

Uncle Bruce · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

I must be missing something. I just don't see how the DA can intentionally destroy evidence in a pending case.

Ann O'Nymous · Aug 8, 2009

Re: Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

Uncle Bruce;964063 said:

I must be missing something. I just don't see how the DA can intentionally destroy evidence in a pending case.

Who said it was the DA ?

Log in or Sign up

Riverside DA: AO's evidence destroyed

mnql1 Member

Anonymous Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

Anonymous Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

Anonymous Member

timthephoto Member

RightOn Member

CaptainAdderall Member

Sponge Member

CaptainAdderall Member

RightOn Member

amaX Member

Sponge Member

RightOn Member

celtg Member

RightOn Member

Anonymous Member

Uncle Bruce Member

Consensus Member

Uncle Bruce Member

Anonymous Member

RightOn Member

Mutante Member

Obi-Wan-anon Member

RaddaRadda Member

Anonymous Member

Consensus Member

Uncle Bruce Member

Sponge Member

xenubarb Member

Anonymous Member

RightOn Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

Sponge Member

PAnonA Member

TypingChimp Member

Uncle Bruce Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins