angiEmedia

Why is it that government seems so resistant to punishing sociopaths in family law disputes? These people frequently use false allegations, lies, distortion and vilification campaigns, perjury, false reports to law enforcement and child protection agencies, and other tactics to badly harm an ex-spouse and his or her family and friends. Many of their abusive and illegal actions are crimes that trigger significant unwarranted expenses on the part of government including law enforcement, child protection, and courts. Given the adverse financial impact on taxpayers that is tantamount to committing fraud, society should have a strong incentive to punish these people and to make them pay restitution for their crimes. Yet this virtually never happens, even when there is clear proof of criminal conduct by these people.

There must be a reason for why these people are not being held accountable for their crimes. Often judges and lawyers say perjury is not punished because it is “too expensive” to prosecute perjury and false reports to law enforcement agencies. The few cases of perjury you do see prosecuted are usually pursued for political reasons even when there is little to no identifiable harm done by the particular lies made under oath.

When you consider other examples of crimes the government does prosecute people for doing, that “too expensive” argument rings false. The government routinely prosecutes people for minor drug crimes that have created nowhere near the damage caused by sociopathic attacks in family law disputes, and they often spend many tens of thousands of dollars pursuing these minor offenders even when there are no identifiable victims besides the drug abuser himself or herself.

Who does more damage to society, the casual drug addict or the sociopath in a family law dispute? The drug addict who gets high in his or her home a few times per week for years but doesn’t drive under the influence and doesn’t sell drugs might do some damage to others, but often it is hard to even identify what that damage is.

On the other hand, the sociopathic liar who files false child abuse reports, lies about domestic violence or rape, and triggers many years of law enforcement investigations, court hearings, CPS actions, and causes the victims of the lies (the children and the falsely accused parent) to be deprived of their rights and financial security. Sometimes people are even incarcerated on the basis of the lies.

The damage often continues for many years, sometimes even decades. Not infrequently, it leads to severe damage to the children and even death by stress or suicide of the falsely accused. Such a sociopath also causes financial damage to taxpayers running into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars over the years.

But judging by the almost zero prosecutions for perjury and malicious false reports to law enforcement agencies in obvious cases of malicious lying in family law disputes, it is evidently public policy to not prosecute such a sociopath’s crimes, even when there are multiple identifiable victims and the damages are often extreme.

Why is it that the government may be willing to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute and imprison a drug user who has hurt possibly nobody but himself or herself but is not willing to prosecute and imprison a perjurer or false reporter who has hurt many others?

One commonly cited reason is that it is against the government’s financial interests to stop extorting the life savings from people stuck in family court. They would much rather keep these conflicts going for years and even decades, lining the pockets of many involved in the courts.

However, there is certainly job security and money to be made that could be found prosecuting sociopathic liars as there are so many of them to be found in family law disputes. Thus there must be another reason for why perjurers and false reporters are not being prosecuted.

A second and possibly more important reason why government does not prosecute perjurers and false reporters is that prosecuting these people would also call unwanted attention to the tactics they use. The government does not want these tactics to be seen for what they are because the abusive and illegal tactics used by a sociopath in a family law dispute are similar to tactics frequently used by government employees including politicians, law enforcement officers, child protection social workers, and court employees such as judges. Character assassination using lies, making false allegations, and harassment including vilification campaigns are the common tools of sociopaths in family law disputes and sociopaths in government.

The government does not want to punish sociopaths in family law disputes because government itself is filled with sociopaths who use the same abusive and illegal strategies to get their way. If they prosecute sociopaths in family law disputes, they increase their own risk for prosecution, too. Much better for them to protect the sociopaths and protect themselves, too.

As a result, I strongly believe that anybody who is seriously interested in advocating for family law reform must also join up with and support groups fighting against other forms of abuse and corruption in the government. Government will consistently oppose necessary reform of family law not just because of greed, but also because such reforms might pave the way to action against the liars, cheats, crooks, and fraudsters that fill the ranks of the political class. Without cleaning up the government and replacing the sociopaths in it with people who will follow the law, there is no real hope of family law reform ever succeeding.

Further Reading

Abusive Conduct and Failure To Follow Law by Judge William Watkins Requires His Removal From Bench

Los Angeles DA Must Prosecute Wanetta Gibson for False Rape Allegation Against Brian Banks

Former Gov. Jesse Ventura Rightly Labels United States the “Fascist States of America”

San Diego Custody Evaluators Generate Cash Flow by Victimizing Families Using Restraining Orders

How Sociopathic Parents Use Police Reports for Defamation

Prosecuting Civil Perjury Is Unusual, but It Can Mean Prison

Leila Marie Tarantino (DOB 10/24/1976) of Citrus Springs, Florida, claims that on July 17, 2011, she was pulled over by Citrus County Sheriff Department officers on South Columbia Street in Beverly Hills, Florida, for rolling through a stop sign, an offense she denies committing. She claims she fully stopped at the stop sign, then a police car did a U-turn to stop her vehicle. She says her two kids ages 4 and 1 were in the car with her and got a full view of the malevolent antics of the police as they pointed a gun in her face, removed her from her car, and put her in a squad car for two hours. She claims that when backup arrived, the cops then proceeded to strip search her along the side of the road, and forcibly pulled a tampon out of her in a search for contraband. She was then released with a traffic citation for violating restrictions on her driver’s license.

Here’s a copy of the lawsuit filed against the Sheriff Jeffrey Dawsy (who is alleged to have personally approved of the strip search in this incident), the department, the Citrus County government, and six other unnamed officers including five men and one woman. The female police officer is the one alleged to have pulled the tampon out from Tarantino.

Tarantino Tampon Lawsuit

According to Florida Statute 901.211, strip searches are unlawful for such a traffic stop:

2011 Florida Statutes: 901.211 Strip searches of persons arrested; body cavity search

(1) As used in this section, the term “strip search” means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of such person.
(2) No person arrested for a traffic, regulatory, or misdemeanor offense, except in a case which is violent in nature, which involves a weapon, or which involves a controlled substance, shall be strip searched unless:
(a) There is probable cause to believe that the individual is concealing a weapon, a controlled substance, or stolen property; or
(b) A judge at first appearance has found that the person arrested cannot be released either on recognizance or bond and therefore shall be incarcerated in the county jail.
(3) Each strip search shall be performed by a person of the same gender as the arrested person and on premises where the search cannot be observed by persons not physically conducting or observing the search pursuant to this section. Any observer shall be of the same gender as the arrested person.
(4) Any body cavity search must be performed under sanitary conditions.
(5) No law enforcement officer shall order a strip search within the agency or facility without obtaining the written authorization of the supervising officer on duty.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common-law right of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.

Is Tarantino Truthful?

But did this incident happen as Tarantino describes? The Citrus County Sheriff Department says Tarantino is lying and making false accusations. They point to Tarantino’s extensive court history including criminal history including a history of alleged domestic violence in 2011 and numerous traffic violations including hit and run driving, repeated DUIs, and repeatedly driving with a suspended license.
Read more…

In his blog post My Virgin experience as a Paedophile!, Sydney firefighter John McGirr details how Virgin Australia treated him as a pedophile because he was assigned a seat next to two unaccompanied boys around age 10. When an airline stewardess observed he was sitting next to the kids, she demanded that he give up the seat. She then asked a woman to take his seat, telling her that he was not allowed to sit next to minors. In other words, she implicitly defamed him as a child sex offender simply because he is male.

Statistics say that child sex offenders are more likely to be family members as so much of child sexual abuse occurs within families. So these two boys were probably statistically safer sitting next to a stranger who is a male than next to a family member who is male. And in a day and age where female school teachers sexually abuse male students, why are women considered any safer to be sitting next to kids? That’s doubly so when you consider the 2008 incident of a drunk women sexually harassing a 14 year old boy and offering him drugs on a Southwest Airlines flight in the US.

Since this story showed up on the Sydney Morning Herald’s website on August 10, there have been more than 800 comments and over 44,000 votes on Virgin’s policy against men. 87% of the votes cast say that Virgin’s policy is sexist and suggests all men are potential pedophiles.

Let Virgin Australia know that you will not be flying with them so long as they maintain a policy of sexism and defamation against men. Here are email addresses for their executive officers:

CEO John Borghetti: [email protected]

CFO Sankar Narayan: [email protected]

Group Executive Sales Judith Compton: [email protected]

COO Sean Donohue: [email protected]

Group Executive of Brand and Customer Experience Mark Hassell: [email protected]

Group Executive Corporate Communications Danielle Keighery: [email protected]

Group Executive Alliances, Network & Yield Merren McArthur: [email protected]

Group Executive Government Relations Jane McKeon: [email protected]

Group Executive People Richard Tanner: [email protected]

General Counsel Adam Thatcher: [email protected]

You can also file a human rights complaint against Virgin Australia by emailing the Australian government at [email protected] .

Further Reading

Virgin defends policy of separating men from children

Sydney fireman John McGirr accuses Virgin of discrimination

Virgin accused of treating men ‘like paedophiles’

Virgin Australia’s Facebook page discussing its sexist policies against men

Virgin review after ‘pedophile’ complaint

Woman algebra teacher had ‘passionate affair with 16-year-old student’ during summer vacation

Southwest Airlines Sued Over Child Sexual Harassment

British Airways compensates man for sexist child seating policy

On April 3, 2012, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Alan Friendthal was publicly admonished by a 9 to 1 vote of the California Commission on Judicial Performance for abusive conduct in violation of judicial canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics in five family law cases in June 2007 to January 2009. CJP found that he engaged in improper conduct including verbal abuse of litigants, engaging in ex-parte communications, conducting independent investigations which is clearly not part of his job duties, complaining to litigants about formal legal complaints they had filed against him, and demonstrating that he was personally embroiled in the cases before him.

Laura Lynn is a California mother who has been abused by the family courts of Los Angeles. Commissioner Alan Friendenthal presided over many hearings in her family law case and her case is one of those cited as evidence of Friedenthal’s misconduct in the form of creating apparent bias and clearly showing his personal embroilment in the case before him. In her case and others, Friedenthal improperly acted as an investigator, contacted third parties involved on his own behalf, and outside of hearings reviewed web postings written by litigants and then complained about those postings during hearings. CJP found that he was improperly conducted investigations and engaging in ex-parte communications.

In a stunning example of how the courts value money over children and the law, Friedenthal threatened to remove custody from a father who was to have the child with him because of alleged abuse by the child’s stepfather. When the father pointed out he could not afford to pay for a custody evaluation all at once and asked for a payment plan, Friedenthal threatened to place the child with other relatives:

At a hearing on July 3,2007, arrangements were made for the minor child to return by airplane to his father’s residence from his mother’s residence in another state pending a custody hearing set for August 3,2007. A supplementary custody evaluation had been ordered. Commissioner Friedenthal ordered the father to pay over $4,000 in fees for minor’s counsel and the supplemental custody evaluation. When the father raised his hand to address the issue of payment, Commissioner Friedenthal responded by threatening to place the child with grandparents, as follows:

[FATHER]: I’m not refusing to pay. I owe a lot of people money –

THE COURT: Okay. This needs to be grandparentplacement because he can’t afford to pay the rates for the child. f^J Where do the [grand]parents live?

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: Mexico.

THE COURT: [Mother]?

[10-fl]

[MOTHER]: My parents are in Mexico.

THE COURT: You have brothers?

[MOTHER]: I have a brother in Moorpark.

111… [11

THE COURT: I want [minor’s counsel] to talk to the brother in Moorpark. [f] Will you provide that information?

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: My client is simply saying he’d like to have a payment arrangement. On that basis, you are going to order –

THE COURT: Marsha Wiley is going to do this evaluation. If I have to stand on my head and walk on my hands all the way down McKay –

[FATHER]: I’m asking for three payments, sir.

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: Rather than-

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Miss Wiley does not accept that. Most evaluators request –

THE COURT: She wanted 2,500?

[MINOR’S COUNSEL]: No; 3,500 which is very modest.

THE COURT: Follow my order. That’s it. No more discussion. [Tf] What is your brother’s name in Moorpark?

[10 [Mother’s counsel] is to provide his name and number to [minor’s counsel] for appropriateness of some shared custody.

(R.T. 15:5-16:10.)

Commissioner Friedenthal’s threat to award custody of the child to other family members in response to the father’s statements that he was not refusing to pay fees but wanted a payment plan constituted a threatened abuse of authority and violated canons 1, 2A and 3B(4). At his appearance before the commission, the commissioner maintained that his statement concerning a grandparent placement was based on his concerns about the father’s parenting abilities. This assertion is refuted by the fact that the commissioner had already ordered a supplemental custody evaluation report and scheduled a custody hearing for the following month, as well as by the commissioner’s own words: “This needs to be a grandparent placement because he can’t afford to pay the rates for the child” (Italicsadded.)

Commissioner Friedenthal’s conduct in the matters described above was, at a minimum, improper action.

Other cases cited as evidence of misconduct by Friedenthal include those of Tonja Jarrett and Maria Chiarello.

Many other allegations of violations of judicial ethics codes and laws have been leveled against Friedenthal that appear to go beyond the scope of the CJP investigation. See a Topix discussion thread on Alan Friedenthal for more examples such as allegations he was practicing as an attorney while servicing as a court commissioner and alleged failure to file Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) as required for court judicial officers.

Laura Lynn contends that the misconduct of Friedenthal extends far beyond the contents of the CJP report:

Quoted from Who complained about Commissioner Alan Friedenthal?:

The story is much bigger than the simple little order written. It is my contention that Commissioner Friedenthal was a conspirator to commit fraud and aided and abetted convicted child abductor Crystel Lynn Strellioff to conceal the children she abducted. He and his wife Commissioner Steff Padilla also adopted two children whose mother’s parental rights were completely severed with no apparent reason. The biological mother has a tidy home, does not seem to be using illegal drugs and is a practicing Mormon, married to a substitute school teacher.

Friendenthal was removed from hearing family law cases, but is still a judicial officer in Los Angeles County. LA Times reports that he was reassigned to small claims, civil, and unlawful detainer cases in February 2009.

Friedenthal should be removed from the bench entirely. But as is typical of CJP’s usual glacial paced disciplinary actions that take years to result in a report, the “severe public admonishment” doesn’t go far enough to repair the damage Friedenthal has done to the public and his victims and to prevent his abuses of law from recurring.

CJP’s severe public admonishment means so little that he was elected to be secretary-treasurer of the executive board of the California Judges Association two months after his severe public admonishment. California judges want abusers and criminals among them and regard such people as important leaders of their corrupt racketeering influenced organization.

The full text of the severe public admonishment of Alan Friedenthal is available on the CJP website.

Judge Elizabeth Feffer reportedly replaced Friedenthal on a number of contentious family law cases. But there are many concerns being expressed about problems with Feffer’s judicial conduct and integrity, also. One anonymous litigant reports that Feffer cited as reason to change custody of children the fact that the litigant had filed complaints against Friedenthal:

Judge Feffer crossed the line – in her statment of decision to transfer custody to the abusive father, she cited, for 14 pages in her statement of decision, our “harassing complaints of the prior Commissioner”.

Too bad that her Statement of Decision, done in December, 2011, was just a few months ahead of the Public Admonishment of that poor Commissioner.

If that is true, then Feffer should be subjected to the even more severe punishment than Friedenthal has received for his comments about complaints against him. Punishing a litigant for filing a complaint against the court that when investigated turns out to be valid is a ridiculous abuse of justice.

Further Reading

California judicial panel admonishes L.A. County commissioner

CJP Admonishes Commissioner Alan Friedenthal

Musings about the late admonishment of Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal

CJP Investigation of Judge Lisa Schall Heats Up, Citizen Input Sought

San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido Resigns Under Fire, Yet Shows CJP Is Corrupt

San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido Demeans Litigants and Justice to Create Demo Videos for Her Proposed TV Show

Sacramento Judge Peter James McBrien Dismembers Park Trees and Families In Contempt for Law

Parental alienation is a form of emotional child abuse that occurs when one parent teaches the children to fear, disrespect, and/or avoid the other parent. It’s a common problem in divorces, but unknown to many alienation often gets started in marriages well before a divorce.

Studies of parental alienation show that alienators are almost exclusively parents with sole custody of the children. Statistics on child custody arrangements show that around 80% to 85% of children of divorce in the US end up in the sole custody of their mothers and that this has been the case for multiple decades despite changes in family law and society. These two observations combined mean that parental alienators are predominantly mothers and the parents they are teaching the children to hate are primarily fathers.

Alienators are emotional child abusers, often in more ways than just by teaching the kids to hate the other parent. Many alienators suffer personality disorders and also engage in emotional parentification (also known as emotional incest) by inappropriately using their children as emotional crutches for themselves.

To deny the culpability of these mothers who are child abusers, feminists belonging to groups such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) deny the very existence of parental alienation. They usually offer statements that there is “no scientific evidence that parental alienation is real” and “parental alienation is an excuse for why children do not like child abusing fathers.” Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist who was among those early in describing and defining Parental Alienation Syndrome (commonly abbreviated as PAS, it is a severe form of parental alienation in which the child aligns completely with the alienating parent), made it clear that alienation was not at work if the child disliked a parent who was truly being abusive to the child. But the feminists, in their zeal to treat all women as victims and trash all men as abusers, completely overlook that fact.

There are a growing number of alienated moms in which the child abuser in the family is the father. Typically this occurs in families in which the father has a narcissistic personality and has some advantages such as:

• He is more wealthy.
• He has more education.
• He has professional certification such as a doctor, lawyer, judge, or law enforcement officer.
• He is more politically connected.
• He is a native operating in his own culture and the mother is an immigrant.

These advantages for a narcissistic man often aid him in reversing the usual anti-father bias in family courts, generally producing an anti-mother bias in these cases. Although anti-father bias is clearly wrong, it is disgustingly ironic that often when the bias becomes anti-mother it is happening in cases in which the fathers actually are behaving abusively.
Read more…

There is a significant percentage of people who put their own selfish desires first, lack the capacity to have empathy for others, and have no grasp of basic principles of fairness or justice. Many of these people also refuse to follow laws and rules intended to protect the rights and safety of others. Collectively, these people are often referred to as sociopaths or psychopaths. Although many of the most famous psychopaths are male serial killers, in reality psychopaths come in both genders. But if you have heard the endless droning of radical feminists and “domestic violence advocates” (some of whom are violent women themselves), you may be under the mistaken impression that women are nonviolent and men are always the violent ones. To help correct this misperception, in this article we present a few cases where nonviolent men were murdered by women in their own homes to back up the point that women in fact are entirely capable of very vicious deadly violence and can quality for being psychopaths, too. In some of these cases, these violent women not only murdered their lovers, they also attempted to kill other relatives living in the same home including even their own children.

Ronnie Tatad Allegedly Murdered Her Ex-Husband Via Boiling Water

In one of the most recent of these horrific stories, 39 year old Ronnie Tatad is believed to have boiled hot water and dumped it on her sleeping ex-husband, 36 year old Jesusa Tatad, in the Daly City, California apartment the two shared four years after their 2007 divorce. Two weeks later, Mr. Tatad died from infection contracted as the result of second and third degree burns over about 55 to 60 percent of his body. Apparently pouring boiling water over her ex hadn’t been enough for her. Reports are that she also assaulted him with a baseball bat to the head as he was in agony from the burns.

If these allegations are true, Ronnie Tatad is a psychopath who belongs in prison for life. She is just one of what are probably many thousands or more female psychopaths who have committed horrific crimes against defenseless men while they were sleeping.

Teresa Spitz Shot Husband In Head Three Times, Murdered Mother-In-Law

Another stellar example of a crazy female murderer is Teresa Spitz. This psycho woke up in the middle of the night one day in 2004, took her son to a neighbor’s home in their Englewood, Colorado community, and then went back to shoot her sleeping husband Peter Spitz in the head three times after she put a pillow over his head. She then killed his mother who lived with them.

Read more…

Two of the most basic premises in Western jurisprudence are impartiality of the judge and that the judge must follow the law and rulings of higher courts. Family Law Judge William Watkins of Putnam County, West Virginia, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unable to perform either of these basic job duties. West Virginia has a legal obligation to remove this abusive man from the family law bench and to document his abusive conduct publicly to help ensure that no litigant in any court will ever be treated as unjustly and irresponsibly by him again.

Watkins first came to my attention based upon the video below that features him yelling, screaming, and threatening a quiet elderly man named Revered Arthur Hage in a family law hearing over sale of the family home in a divorce. From the very start of the tirade, Watkins makes it clear that he will not allow Hage to speak on threat of imprisonment. He then launches in a verbal tirade making accusations against Hage. The screaming is so loud that it causes the microphone and recording system to distort and clip the audio.

Whether the accusations are true or not, I don’t claim to know. More importantly, the truth or falseness of the accusations is actually besides the point because the judge’s accusations are not about the case being heard but rather about a newspaper article featuring a photograph of Hage’s home and his wife and alleged vandalism of the home that he claims is somehow Hage’s fault. Can there be any kind of conflict of interest more obvious than this?

Watkins has attacked many people in the community over their questioning his impartiality, his lateness on HOA (homeowner’s association) payments, and other problems involving him. His verbal rage at Hage exposes how he thinks he can use his position as a judge to retaliate against people in his courtroom simply because he believes they have something to do with his personal problems.

Watkins had a duty to immediately recuse himself from this case because of his personal feelings and strong conflict of interest. He should have done so by a proper written judicial recusal communicated to both parties, and this would have precluded his ridiculously abusive outburst in court. But Watkins failed to do so, instead holding a hearing to berate a litigant over personal matters and then proceeding to hear the matter thereby showing a complete inability to behave appropriately for a judge.

Even if Hage had personally spray painted, smashed windows, and littered trash at Watkins’ home and there was absolute proof of this such as by a video recording (to be clear, nobody claims there is such proof), Watkins still would have had no business behaving this way. The correct course of action would be to recuse from the case and let the police and prosecutor deal with Hage.
Read more…

Brian Banks was a 16 year old high school football star in Long Beach, California, when a lying girl and the government collaborated to ruin his life. He was falsely accused of rape by classmate Wanetta Gibson after the two had kissed in a stairwell. Gibson concocted an elaborate story claiming that Banks dragged her across campus and raped her. Even though Banks did not commit the crime and in fact there had been no rape at all, his attorney advised him to seek a plea bargain to get a lighter sentence as the government was threatening him with 41 years to life in prison. Choosing what he saw as the lesser of two bad options after his lawyer suggested he would be convicted because he is black, Banks plead “no contest” and was imprisoned for over five years was then put on probation. Upon release, he was forced to wear a GPS monitor, register as a violent sex offender, and was restricted from living near or going near schools.

False accuser Wanetta Gibson is the real rapist (as in financial rape) in this story. She and her family got a large settlement (variously reported as either being $750,000 or $1.5 million) from the Long Beach School District on the basis of her lies and claims that lax school security contributed to causing her “rape”.

Gibson this year admitted Banks did not rape her, but was worried she might have to repay the fraudulently obtained settlement. Students, investigators, and attorneys associated with the California Innocence Project helped to obtain evidence that Gibson had falsely accused Banks which resulted in the overturning of his conviction on May 24, 2012.

As the California Innocence Project web page on the Banks case explains:

Banks was faced with an impossible decision at the time – either fight the charges and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal and spend a little over 5 years of actual prison confinement. Although it would mean destroying his chance to go to college and play football, a lengthy probationary period, and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender, Banks chose the lesser of two evils when he pleaded no contest to the charges.

Teri Stoddard of SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is calling for the prosecution of Wanetta Gibson as part of their effort to quash the epidemic of false allegations of crime and violence that are ruining the lives of many innocent people. She reports that roughly ten percent of Americans have been falsely accused of child abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault and there are very few protections for such people.

Gibson should be prosecuted for perjury. But that doesn’t go far enough. She should also be prosecuted for criminal fraud that cost taxpayers and insurers an enormous settlement plus legal fees in this case featuring a lying girl and an irresponsible government that encourages more liars to level false allegations by failing to prosecute such crimes.

Significant financial restitution and assistance to Brian Banks and his family is also warranted. It should be paid by the LA County District Attorney, the State of California, and Gibson to Banks and his family.

This boy was placed into prison at the age of 16 years old for 5 years for a rape that did not occur simply because a girl lied against him and the government failed to do its job to determine the truth, instead preferring to bully an innocent child into letting himself be steamrolled by the government because he was male and black and therefore was assumed to be guilty based merely upon a disputed accusation and his race and gender.

Brian Banks is a poster case for the injustices against men and African-American men in particular. If his accuser had been of some other racial group (she is African-American, too), you can get her crime would be the fuse in a powder keg of a potential racial uprising in Los Angeles. There is no doubt that racial bias played a part in the success of the State of California coercing Banks into pleading no contest.
Read more…

Soner Yasa is a cab driver in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, who experienced a horrific ordeal that presented a dire threat to his personal freedom. Yasa was falsely accused of a crime against women. As so many men experience, the police are ready and willing to abuse the actual victim of a crime and encourage future criminal conduct when the criminal is a dishonest woman and the victim is a man.

In Yasa’s case, four drunk women reported to police that he had sexually assaulted them as a ploy to refuse to pay a $13 cab fare. It was only thanks to his cab’s audio and video surveillance equipment that he was spared jail.

Yasa had picked up the four women outside a bar on Whyte Avenue. He says they hopped into his cab “uninvited” and then demanded to be driven to a residential neighborhood. At least one of the intoxicated women tried smoking in his cab. He told them they could not do this because it is illegal and could trigger a $500 fine. They demanded he stop the cab and refused to pay the $13 fare. The women then proceeded to falsely report their allegation of sexual assault to the police and to their friends and onlookers, allegedly triggering a mob of people to acting threateningly towards Yasa until police arrived and could investigate.
Read more…

In the heavily contested election race for San Diego mayor, there’s one candidate whom you should clearly not support: Bonnie Dumanis, the District Attorney of San Diego County. It’s probably impossible to create a full list of all the nefarious actions and inactions she has committed during her career, but the following are a few highlights to give you a flavor of what Dumanis represents. You can also find additional concerning reports regarding Dumanis on Maura Larkins’ summary of coverage on the suspicious actions of Bonnie Dumanis.

Dumanis Ignores Crimes By Lawyers and Government Employees

As the San Diego Union Tribune reported, the San Diego DA office frequently fails to prosecute lawyers and other current or former government employees for serious crimes. DA Bonnie Dumanis is well known for her pattern of irresponsible failure to prosecute people who have connections to the courts and government.

Quoted from Critics: DA should prosecute problem lawyers:

After a trial late last year, the State Bar Court of California concluded that Carlsbad lawyer Patricia Gregory improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from client trust funds.

A judge recommended Gregory for disbarment in March, and the attorney is fighting the decision. She is not eligible to practice law while the review process runs its course.

Gregory has not been prosecuted, nor have several other attorneys who faced such findings from the bar. Critics say the District Attorney’s Office should act in such cases, but the staff says there are many complicating factors, such as different standards of proof and the need to set priorities.

In San Diego County, you can expect that short of mainstream media raising a crime by one of these people to the public’s attention, there will be no prosecution even when it is warranted. A lawyer stealing funds from a client such as former DA employee Patricia Gregory (who was eventually prosecuted for taking over $100,000 in client funds), government employees and contractors perjuring in court and causing millions of dollars in damage to their victims, and engaging in malicious false prosecutions are all among the types of crimes the San Diego DA would like to ignore. Failing to prosecute such crimes in presence of compelling evidence they did occur thereby encourages such criminal conduct to continue.

In the case of Patricia Gregory, Dumanis was forced by public pressure to prosecute her and a conviction was obtained. But how many other cases were brushed under the carpet and stayed there because the public didn’t press the DA to prosecute obvious criminal behaviors for which credible evidence was available?

San Diego family court critic Eileen Lasher has also criticized District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis for failing to protect the community from lawyers committing crimes. One of her examples is how San Diego attorney Theresa Erickson engaged in “baby selling crimes” violating California adoption and surrogacy laws for years as DA Dumanis and the San Diego courts looked the other way. Seemingly because of the severe corruption throughout government and courts in the San Diego region, it took US federal government intervention to put a stop to the baby selling ring.

Dumanis Prosecutes Based Upon Political Agenda

If you are a decision-maker working for the government who is friendly to her or are a wealthy friend of somebody in such a role in San Diego County, Bonnie Dumanis will tend to ignore your violations of the law. That is unless you are running for office against her or one of her friends. Then she is ready to abuse the powers of her office to wrongly harass you for daring to oppose her, even when no crime has been committed. She organized a “Public Integrity Unit” run by Patrick O’Toole which was obviously used to implement this policy.
Read more…