Friday, January 25, 2008

Jails Do Not Rehabilitate

Criminal Minds

The Founding Fathers framed much of the United States
on Judeo-Christian values.
It should come as no surprise that its prisons also have roots in religion.
But is modern imprisonment biblical?
What is preventing prisons from deterring crime?

By Samuel C. Baxter

Seventeen-nineties America was a fledgling nation—“a clean slate.” It was thought that any problems of the past could be solved with the high aim of constructing a perfect nation.

Colonial America punished criminals through swiftly executed punishments, which were generally performed publicly to bring shame and humiliation to the perpetrator and to prevent similar crimes from occurring. Typical sentences involved being whipped or a stint in the stockades.

Jails did exist, but they were only used to hold criminals awaiting trial and sentencing.

However, after the Revolution, the elite in America saw this system as archaic and inhumane, and determined to improve and update it.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the U.S. Constitution, proposed a new system of punishment, one that would work to rehabilitate criminals, turning them into functioning members of society.

Drawing from a Quaker belief that all humans have an “Inner Light”—an inherent goodness—Rush devised a system of solitary confinement (this practice also has roots in Catholic monasteries, where disobedient monks were isolated as punishment).

In this new system, men were placed in a tiny cell and given only a Bible to read. The prisoner was referred to by a number rather than a name and kept in his cell most of the day, except for a short period of exercise in an adjoining pen. Silence was maintained at all times. When an inmate was allowed out of his cell, a hood was placed over his head to continue his isolation. Being alone with one’s conscience was considered to be the most effective form of punishment, allowing the inmate time to meditate on his actions and repent.

Although this system of complete isolation was scrapped after the American Civil War due to its high cost, it marked a move toward imprisonment as the primary form of punishment. Less strict variations of Rush’s system spread throughout America and the world. This led to the prisons of today.

Modern prisoners are still stripped of all earthly possessions, given a number and locked up in a cell as punishment—rather than being flogged and released, publicly humiliated, or executed. More recently, high-security or “supermax” prisons have resurrected a type of Rush’s model of solitary confinement.

Given the roots of the modern prison system in two different sects of Christianity, a few questions must be asked. Are prisons biblical? Does the God of the Bible prescribe this as an appropriate and effective way to curb crime? And can prisons actually rehabilitate—bring a change of mind to those who inhabit them?

America’s Prison System

Today’s prisons have three [stated] basic objectives: punish a criminal by taking away his time, remove him from society (in an attempt to remove crime as well) and rehabilitate inmates to become better functioning members of society upon release.

The problems inherent with this system have remained the same for years: recidivism (repeated relapse into criminal acts), overcrowding, cost and, most tellingly—despite the large amounts of funding—the utter inability of the system to reduce crime.

A recent trend by state governments has been to pass laws calling for stricter mandatory sentences, with the thinking that longer prison time will deter future crimes. A variation of this is the “three-strike rule”: If convicted three separate times for a felony, the criminal receives automatic life imprisonment.

Laws such as these have not prevented a dramatic increase in the prison population.

At the end of 2006, roughly 1 in 31 adults in the United States were in prison or jail, or on parole or supervised release, according to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

During the late 1970s, there were about 268,000 prison inmates in all 50 states. By the end of 2006, there were over 2.4 million. Despite this drastic increase, crime rates remain high.

More prisoners also equal higher costs. In 2001, the average inmate cost over $22,500 annually, or about $62 a day (BJS). If the amount spent on inmates has remained the same since then, prisoners will have cost the nation over $50.5 billion annually. Some reports claim the costs are over $60 billion per year.

Correctional facilities are also criticized as being a “college” for criminals. While housed with other offenders, inmates have time to discuss, learn and hone their craft—whether grand theft auto, breaking and entering, or learning how to better escape capture. Rather than being rehabilitated, prisoners are released, only to commit criminal acts again—but now more effectively.

Of the prisoners released in 1994 (the most recent nationwide study by the BJS), 67.5% were rearrested within three years. It is likely this percentage has increased since that time.

A new batch of problems has been added to the above list. Illegal immigrants are greatly contributing to both prison costs and the problem of overcrowding. Prisoners have also begun to sue state and federal governments for inhumane conditions, stemming from the problem of overcrowding. Often, the inmates win, with the courts ordering the institutions to clean up their acts.
America’s prisons have failed to produce any tangible results. Simply put, they do not work.
Can this system of imprisonment, which apparently stems from Christianity, be found in the Bible?

Biblical Criminal Justice

Imprisonment is found throughout Scripture. As a young man, Joseph was thrown into prison in Egypt (Gen. 39:20). Samson, after having his eyes put out, was put to work in a grinding mill prison house of the Philistines (Jdg. 16:21). Jeremiah spent many of his days in the “court of the prison” (Jer. 32:2).

Also, throughout the New Testament, men such as Paul, James, John the Baptist and Peter, among others, were imprisoned.

This shows that variations of imprisonment have been used for thousands of years.

However, prisons are not God’s way of dealing with crime. The above examples were all from nations not led by God!

When Israel was led out of Egypt, God gave the nation a civil code of laws that would cause the Gentiles to view Israel as a “great nation” that was both “wise and understanding” (Deut. 4:6). However, in this code God included no provision for prisons. Instead, there were swift and sure punishments for each broken law.

In contrast to America’s current prison system, a broken law generally resulted in a predetermined punishment—with no gray areas.

Once a man was sentenced, the punishment was swiftly and publicly carried out—often with citizens helping to execute sentences.

This system of corporal and capital punishment was used so that other citizens would “hear and fear” (Deut. 13:11; 17:13; 19:20), realizing the consequences of breaking the law.

The closest thing to a prison were wards, where criminals awaited sentencing, followed by their quick and sure punishment (Lev. 24:12; Num. 15:34).

On top of this, penalties fit the crime. In the 21st century, what and how long a sentence should be are usually left to a judge to decide. For the same offense, one man will receive years in prison, while another only a handful of months—or even none at all!

Physical punishment under Israel’s civil laws was made to fit the crime, not the criminal. Some crimes meant flogging or a mandatory death sentence. Others incurred less severe punishments. For example, if a man were caught stealing he was ordered to pay back twice the stolen amount (Exo. 22:4-9).

By consistently and publicly punishing criminals, the ancient Israelites knew what consequences would result if they broke these laws. In doing so, crime was thwarted.

If this were to be enacted today, it would still work. However, this system would be derided as archaic and outdated (just as similar punishments were from Colonial America). While modern prisons are plagued with mounting problems, God’s Way involves swift sentencing, with swift punishment.

It may seem that what is outlined in the Bible is “too simple” and critics could decry that it could never fit every case. However, applying God’s Law would work to effectively reduce crime—if a nation diligently applied it.

United States prisons cannot produce real rehabilitation or change in inmates. Modern systems are not based upon God’s Law, rather the ideas of men! Because of this, prisons cannot get to the core problem of crime—human nature!

If prisons did not come from the God of the Bible, then who is responsible for conceiving this form of punishment?

Modern Prisons

Recently a type of Dr. Rush’s solitary confinement has been brought back into practice in the form of supermax prisons. However, instead of facilitating repentance—bringing change in mindsets of inmates—these prison cells are reserved for the “worst of the worst”—prisoners who, given the current system, could not follow the laws of government nor the rules of lower security prisons. Virtually labeled unfixable, these criminals will live out their lives in solitude—with little hope they will change.

Over 20,000 inmates, spread across 30 states, are kept in lockdown and complete isolation in a 10-foot by 14-foot room for 23 hours a day. During the remaining hour, prisoners are escorted to an exercise pen, and then returned to their cell, which contains only a desk, a bed with a thin mattress, a sink and a toilet. The metal door is soundproofed to ensure as little contact as possible with adjacent prisoners, and the three meals a day are delivered through an opening on the door for the prisoner to eat in solitude.
To be continued...

Wednesday, January 23, 2008



There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice ...
- U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)

Penal Code 832.5. (a) (1) Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public. (2) Each department or agency that employs custodial officers, as defined in Section 831.5, may establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against those custodial officers employed by these departments or agencies, provided however, that any procedure so established shall comply with the provisions of this section and with the provisions of Section 832.7. (b) Complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints shall be retained for a period of at least five years.

This complaint is made against Cathedral City California Police Department, and all mentioned police officers, and with the intent to make a companion report to The U.S. Department of Justice; Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400, and call a Grand Jury for misconduct, abuse under color of law, and possible RICO charges.

On FEBRUARY 2, 2004 I make a request to Judy Williams, Administrative Secretary to Chief Stan Henry and ask to make a complaint and request an investigation regarding two officers, believed to be Sergeant Charles Robinson, and Captain Kevin Connor and their approaching the Office of Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and slandering me to the point that Garcia's aide, Mary Brhel, [married to ex-Deputy District Attorney Martin Brhel) put me on a "threat list" in Sacramento.

FEBRUARY 3 2004, Cathedral City Police Department began a conspiratorial, covert and clandestine "investigation" against me headed by, Chief Stan Henry, officers Charles Robinson, Judy Williams, Mellisa Holcomb, and Danielle Pascual , City Attorney, Kendell Berkey, with the help of Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Charles Gianguzi, Desert Sun journalist, Cindy Uken, and, the criminally- minded board of directors in Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. As a result, a void on the face restraining order INC 043437 - ROBINSON et al v. STEPHENS Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA. was issued as I did not have the understanding of how to fight such an order, and consequently it resulted in $100,000 legal fees, the loss of my home and over a year incarcerated in Riverside County Jail, in 24 hour a day solitary confinement.

This sham investigation against me proved nothing!

THE PROOF of conspiracy is written in the 65 page Memorandum of Costs.
THE PROOF of the void on the face restraining order is documented in the law of the State of California.

BACKGROUND: My experience started with the Cathedral City Police Department in the late 1990s, when they asked me to help catch members of a well-known drug gang family who had moved into our neighborhood, Shadowcrest Homeowners Association, by writing down license plate numbers when they came to buy drugs from the house across the street from me. The family was related to a Shadow Crest board member, John Weiser, and consequently, we received no help from the board.

We were told by Officer Glenn Haas that we very much needed a Neighborhood Watch, as he knew the Riddle family and their many crimes which included attempted murder, abuse of a minor child, and suspected arson.

However, when several members of the association met at the office of association attorney Wayne Guralnick to discuss the situation Officer Haas sold us all out. The board members made it clear they didn't want a Neighborhood Watch and when the discussion began the board president rhetorically asked Officer Haas, "We don't really need a Neighborhood Watch do we?" Haas answered "No, not really."

All of us were shocked! Haas had definitely sold us out!

I wrote a complaint to CCPD regarding the behavior of Glenn Haas.My complaint was never answered by the Cathedral City Police Department.

A private attorney, whom I approached for advice told me, "You complained about the 'Boy's Club' and they will get you!" And, they certainly have .

It wasn't too long before I was on a "hit list" of sorts, and the police turned on me, refusing to come -- even when these drug people threatened our lives.

The police began calling this drug problem a "neighborhood dispute," demonizing me, calling me a liar, and telling everyone I was "crazy."

It took a while, but after calling Eddie Riddle's probation officer, he was finally caught, twice with drugs and weapons, and then after a burglary, prosecuted and sent to prison.

But the trial with these people wasn't over. Eddie's mother, Lollita had threatened to "get me" for her son's incarceration, and about a year later she made a false police report , with the help of Officer Earl Moss, stating I had brandished a gun on her. I appeared in court as a pro per, in a four-day criminal jury trial INM 089407, People v Stephens, Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, California, and won against the Cathedral City police, and, the Riverside County District Attorney.

I would NEVER AGAIN receive any help from Cathedral City Police Department, or the Riverside County District Attorney.

ALL of my complaints have been ignored!I have been falsely arrested, battered while in custody, refused medical treatment while locked in the back of a police car, and had my reputation and name ruined, and even libeled in newspapers such as the Desert Sun with the help of the police and city attorney.

Once you are labeled with these things, it is almost impossible to overcome them. People want to believe police officers, so the police have a great advantage when they decide to railroad someone. Few people want to believe the police are corrupt.

Everything was quiet until a new board came in to Shadow Crest and five women began having problems with the board, and the police refused to help us because of their old vendetta against me. They refused to write any police reports for us, even when James Hooten, association board president pulled what looked like a gun on a group of small children, and three of these men harassed a women and her children so badly her children ended up in counseling -- they even tried to hang her dog from her gate. Officer Laura Hanlon came to my home and met with the women and told them they could do nothing because they had waited two days to report the incident. Three women moved because of the board members harassment.

I went before the Cathedral City, City Council several times to speak about homeowner association problems and to complain about the police department. I did not know at the time that George Stettler, Mayor, was also the Shadow Crest Homeowner Association's insurance agent with State Farm, and therefore in close contact with association attorneys, Ron Green, Brian Moreno, and Jeffery French, of Duke Gerstel and Shearer, as well as the board of directors and management company. He, of course would offer no help!

When Cathedral City Police Sergeant, Dave Hatfield, an old nemesis with a grudge for the complaints I had made against him, was called one morning after association board member, Kent Robbins threatened my life and raised his fist to me. Robbins lied, and Hatfield locked me in a police car where I went into angina could not breath, and later had to be transported to a hospital. I made a complaint.

Several days later I was called in to what was purported to be an investigation into this incident. It was only a ruse. Sergeant Charles Robinson and Captain Kevin Connor, who had refused me help many times in the past with the drug people, conducted the interview and provided no help, nor did they document the interview. Kent Robbinson went into court and was issued a void on the face restraining order, and them went on to again batter me, and committing provable perjury, as is documented by hospital staff in ROBBINS v STEPHENS INC 040482, Riverside Superior Court, Indio, CA. I of course received no help from CCPD and was not even allowed a police report.

On that same morning I I had an appointment at the Office of Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, to speak to the problems of homeowner associations. (I am the founder of HOA VOICE COALITION, and trying to get some support to change some of the laws that encumber people in associations.) We had a good discussion; she congratulated me on being an advocate, and gave me a bouquet of flowers when I left. She said she would call me in a couple of days.

Three days later she called me to report that two Cathedral City officers had been to visit her and had told her such terrible things about me that she had put me on a "Threat List" in Sacramento. That meant I was the next thing to a terrorist, and could not attend any meetings in Sacramento regarding homeowner problems. She hung up the phone, refusing to tell me the names of the officers. Later, her story would be confirmed when her Chief of Staff, Richard Harmon told Madeline Patterson the same thing.

In retrospect, I can see that the police thought I was going to talk about them, and they took it upon themselves to discredit me so that I would not be believed.

I immediately called Judy Williams, the Cathedral City Administrative Secretary to Chief Stan Henry, and demanded an investigation. She hung up on me.

Then I went to City Council, where only one member, Bud England agreed there needed to be an investigation into the two officers. However, the investigation never happened, and, has never happened to this day.

What was happening, behind my back, on the very next day, February 3, 2004 after I called and demanded an investigation, was the beginning of a conspiratorial "investigation" against me with Deputy City Attorney, Kendall Berkey, Chief Stan Henry, Captain Kevin Connor, Captain Holcomb, and Sergeant Charles Robinson, all trying to prove I was making a false police report, that I was "crazy" and, was calling paramedics for false heart problems.

In fact, in June 2002, I had a triple by-pass, and then continued to suffer with ongoing angina, and had two other heart surgeries in 2005 that saved me from having another heart attack. I still suffer angina under stress, and I have been diagnosed with Delayed Post Traumatic Stress.

I didn't know what attorney Berkey and the police were doing at this time, of course, but once I received Kendall Berkey's 65 page Memorandum of Costs for $65,000 in October 2004, I saw that February 3, 2004 was the very day their conspiracy against me began.They were going to make sure that there was never going to be an investigation into the Bonnie Garcia event, and those officers were never going to be caught.

When I received the Memorandum of Costs from Kendal Berkey, she had documented the names of every person she conspired with over several months, racking up more and more money each day, but proving nothing against me. Soon, this bogus investigation, that proved nothing but an entangled conspiracy, came to a cost of $65,000.

I was never contacted once for my side of whatever they were investigating.

I threatened a lawsuit!

On February 11, 2004, Attorney Berkey had me served with a bogus TRO, authorized by Cheif Stan Henry. It never went through the courts, which is illegal, particularly for an attorney, and, all police officers were told not to take any calls from me, or even to talk to me. Yes, that information in the Memo of Costs.

In other words they were not allowing me my right to make either police reports or complaints, not even taking any phone calls.

Sergeant Patton threatened me twice with arrest if I went to the police department to make any reports or complaints.

All of this to protect two police officers.

Then, on February 25, 2004, the one time I happened to catch Secretary, Judy Williams in her office, she said, "The only time we will talk with you is when you have a 911 medical emergency, or someone is killing you. WE will not take any police reports regarding your homeowners association!" and then hung up on me. And so it has been; not only would they not take any police reports for me, but also not for the other women as well that knew me. This is a violation of Penal Code, as well as civil and constitutional rights, and certainly violates the right of equal protection.

Sergeant Hatfield again participated in a false arrest of me at the Annual Homeowners Board Meeting where I and another woman were standing and listening. He did not read the stipulation on the bogus Restraining Order that they could not be enforced in public places.

The Cathedral City police then arrested me twice again, after I was battered by Jose Liceaga, (his own witness stated to the police that he saw me being battered -- the police did nothing!) and once for standing in the public street talking to a gardener. Liceaga had deliberately ran into my car with his truck, in front of a witness, and then kicked me. Again, I was treated as the criminal.

Sergeant Earl Moss said it was because I didn't "act enough like a victim." I wonder if everyone reading this understands that this is the way abusive men treat women; expecting women to behave in a certain way so they will not be beaten up!

The District Attorney told four of us to go to the Cathedral City Police to have them take a report on the embezzlement, extortion, fraud, and RICO, in Shadowcrest HOAm however, the Cathedral City Police Sergeant Earl Moss refused to take a report saying it was a civil matter! NO! all of these are criminal matters, and I suspect Earl Moss is also guilty of conspiracy and collusion with Shadowcrest HOA.

I have continued to try and make a police complaint on the Garcia incident; I have been continually denied a report by Earl Moss, telling me it is "old business."

My name has never been cleared, and I am still on a "threat list" because of what these officers said about me, and until that changes, it is not old business.

The Cathedral City police have been responsible for ruining my name and my reputation all to protect two police officers, which appear to be Sergeant Charles Robinson, and Captain Kevin Connor; the only two officers who knew I was going to the Garcia office that morning.

Even when the problems in my homeowners association became worse and worse, with harassment, batteries, and stalking, all of which the Cathedral City Police Department would do nothing about not for me, nor for other women and their children. The police never gave the women in Shadow Crest equal protection from these male board members.

APRIL 15, 2004: Sergeant Charles Robinson takes all of the board members from Shadow Crest HOA to meet with Deputy District Attorney, Charles Gianguzi, trying to figure a way to get me arrested and in jail. I learn about this when the judge denies all of their requests to arrest me, and I receive the court decisions.

Finally I was just fed up with the police not talking to me, and being put off on making a report. So, I called the number for dispatch, and asked again for a report to be taken. Dispatcher, Danielle Pascual, at the insistence of her Watch Commander, Sergeant Charles Robinson, continued to hang up on me. Every time she would hang up, I would call back. I wasn't keeping count.

Dispatcher Pascual then called, and said, "I am sending over someone to take a police report." I told her I was on my way out the door to go to dinner -- it was the beginning of Passover -- but she said, "Oh, just wait a few minutes to make the police report." I KNEW by intuition what was coming.

What was coming, was Sergeant Charles Robinson, Officer Ernie Vasquez, and another ride-along officer and they arrested me saying I was "making harassing, obscene/threatening calls to 911," which of course was a blatant lie, but it was used to falsely arrest me.

When I later asked for the 911 calls CCPD of course could not produce them. When I asked for the police report, I was not allowed a copy. When I did receive it, months later, a supplement attachment stated I was not calling 911. The calls were made to the phone number that all citizens use to make police reports.However, I was falsely arrested, based on Pascual's false police report, and what can make up for that?

I was then served with a restraining order request from Sergeant Charles Robinson, Dispatcher, Danielle Pascual, Records keeper Melissa Holcomb, and husband of Captain Holcomb, and Secretary to the Chief, Judy Williams. And, on the same day, four months after being in her office, with eight [8] restraining orders from the Office of Bonnie Garcia, and they are all granted on August 3, 2004, in spite of the provable perjury by Danielle Pascual, under oath -- Pascual admitted I was only trying to make a police report, I wasn't calling 911, and that she could take a report over the phone. Judge Hawkins gives the CCPD a restraining order against me calling it a "slippery sloop decision." as I am sure he recognized it was void on the face, even if I did not realize it at the time.

Mary Brhel, with the help of Cathedral City Police Department is granted eight [8] restraining orders against me. She has no witnesses and no police reports to back up her absolutely outrageous lies. ALL of these orders are found to be void, and Commissioner Mike McCoy agrees to dismiss them but I must have Mary Brhel and Richard Harmon served.

Cheif Stan Henry and Deputy City Attorney, Kendall Berkey is well aware her plaintiffs lied in the this false and bogus report and had me falsely arrested, and then made false personal declarations, under penalty of perjury. Both are also aware that Pascual totally changed her story in court, when she admitted under oath that I "was just trying to make a police report, and that she could easily take a report and still do her job."

Cathedral City, and the police have continually used this Restraining Order as a battle-axe, and a sword against me to make sure I make no police complaints, and that the two officers are never investigated.

I have been set up at least three times to be falsely arrested by Sergeant Earl Moss, and I am still not allowed any police complaints.

All of this is "abuse under color of law": Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242Deprivation of Rights Under Color of LawTitle 18, U.S.C., Section 245Federally Protected Activities.

I have absolute proof of this conspiracy from Deputy City Attorney, Kendall Berkey's 65 page Memorandum of Costs, in which she names every person she conspired with, proving NOTHING against me, but instead proving her own conspiracy [to save two police officers, at my expense] and for this I have been charged $100,000 and lost my home, in a conspiratorial effort to destroy me.

The City Manager, Don Bradley, and every member of the City Council are just as responsible for allowing this rogue police department to do this thing.

I don't know for sure when I first heard this, but one can tell a society by the way it treats its young and its elderly. In America we seem to treat our young fairly well, for we somewhat worship youth. But the elderly are of little value, and are often left to just exist the best they can, and, Cathedral City, California is certainly on the cutting edge of that neglect of responsibility.


Sharon Stephens
DATE: January 23, 2008



By Mike Zapler, Mercury News
Article Launched: 02/12/2006 05:31:54 PM PST
Mike Zapler at (408) 920-5505 or

When California prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys engage in conduct that violates defendants' rights, they can rest assured that they will rarely be held to account by the agency in charge of policing lawyers.

A Mercury News review of nearly 1,500 state disciplinary actions over a five-year period found that just one of them involved prosecutorial misconduct. Criminal defense attorneys drew more notice from the State Bar of California, but not much more: Only 5 percent of the actions concerned criminal defense attorneys targeted for their work on behalf of clients.

The findings come in the wake of a Mercury News investigation published last month that revealed the trial and appellate courts also rarely act to curb prosecutors or defense attorneys. Combined with the bar's record, the paper's reviews establish that there is no consistently effective check on courtroom behavior.

Some experts say the situation is deplorable, although they are quick to add that California's failures are not unique.

``The bar and the judiciary that oversees prosecutors do not take actions to enforce the norms of prosecutorial conduct,'' said Richard Rosen, a University of North Carolina law professor who has written about how disciplinary authorities across the country treat prosecutors.

``There are many prosecutors who do their best to follow the rules. But when they choose not to, they know they aren't going to suffer serious consequences.''

Of the three Santa Clara County prosecutors described in the series whose conduct led to a wrongful conviction, there is evidence of only one even being investigated by the bar. That case, involving Deputy District Attorney Benjamin Field, is pending, 18 months after a complaint was filed.

A few of the defense attorneys identified in the series were disbarred, losing the right to practice law. Others, such as Rudy Guzzetta of San Jose, repeatedly have been cited for misrepresenting their clients, and yet they continue to practice. Guzzetta has been disciplined four separate times by the bar since 1987, admitting to multiple instances of misconduct, but the most severe penalty he has faced was a nine-month suspension imposed in 2002.

Guzzetta, however, does not believe he got off easy. ``If there's a complaint to the bar, there's a presumption that you're guilty,'' he said. ``It is a situation where you're not going to get a break, not from the bar.''

Few complaints

Bar officials insist they take complaints against prosecutors seriously. ``It's a grave situation when a prosecutor commits misconduct,'' said Donald Steedman, the bar's supervising trial counsel.
But for a variety of reasons, said Steedman, the bar receives complaints against prosecutors far less often than other types of grievances. When complaints are lodged, bar officials must find ``clear and convincing evidence'' that the prosecutor's violation was intentional to prove charges. ``Our lot is sometimes a hard one,'' he said.

Steedman also noted two recent cases involving prosecutors that fell just outside the time frame for the Mercury News review. In one of them, a Butte County prosecutor was suspended for one year for withholding evidence helpful to the defense -- an infraction that eventually led to the dismissal of charges against the defendant. A third case involving charges of prosecutorial misconduct is pending.

The Mercury News undertook its analysis of bar discipline after learning that the agency does not track its own actions by type of attorney. The paper reviewed summaries in the California Bar Journal of the most serious categories of discipline -- disbarment, probation and suspension -- from 2001 to 2005. That amounted to 1,464 cases.

The review shows that civil attorneys garner by far the most attention. Time and again, discipline logs describe the workings of divorce, bankruptcy and other civil attorneys who collect money from clients and then do little or no work.

When it comes to conduct by attorneys in criminal cases, in contrast, the bar is rarely to be found. Only 75 cases were identified -- one for a prosecutor and 74 for defense attorneys -- in which the lawyer was disciplined for conduct in a criminal proceeding.
The sole prosecutor was B. Iver Bye, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney at the time. In 2004, the bar suspended him for 30 days for secretly assisting a woman under investigation by his office.

Apparent inaction

In some instances, the bar does not act even when detailed charges against a prosecutor are filed. Field was rebuked for withholding evidence and defying judicial orders in a rape case in which a judge later found that the defendants, Damon Auguste and Kamani Hendricks, were wrongfully convicted.

Donna Auguste, Damon Auguste's aunt, said she complained to bar officials about Field in August 2004, but they declined to investigate. So ``I kept calling and filing additional documents,'' Auguste said. Six months later, in February 2005, a bar supervisor agreed that Field should be investigated. But there is no indication since then that the bar took action against Field, although Auguste said an investigator has contacted her on occasion with questions.

Field, who insists he did nothing wrong in the Auguste case, said he has responded fully to the bar's inquiries.

Bar officials say they are most likely to pursue discipline charges against a prosecutor when a court makes a finding of misconduct -- and when the misconduct causes the case to be reversed or dismissed.

But in the case of Los Angeles prosecutor Rosalie Morton -- cited in textbooks and court filings as the epitome of prosecutorial misconduct in California -- the bar still took no action.

In 1998, the California Supreme Court found Morton's actions in a trial so egregious -- she engaged in a ``mountain of deceit and unethical behavior'' -- that it took the extremely rare step of overturning a murder conviction. The court then reported Morton to the state bar for discipline, noting that it was one of a succession of cases in which Morton had been cited by courts for misconduct.

Morton has never been publicly disciplined; she has left the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office but remains an active member of the bar.

Steedman declined to comment, saying the bar discusses only cases that result in formal charges. But he noted that the bar at the time was in the midst of a severe budget crunch caused by a dispute with then-Gov. Pete Wilson. Most employees were laid off, and when the bar resumed functioning, ``We had to prosecute cases we believed would protect the public most from future misconduct.''

Legal experts say there are many reasons why bar organizations rarely pursue prosecutors. One is resources: Cases against prosecutors are hard to prove and likely to be contested, so it is easier for the bar to pursue allegations that involve money, which are more clear-cut.

``It's largely a passive operation that reacts to complaints and chooses to prosecute what it considers the worst violations,'' said Fred Zacharias, a University of San Diego law professor, who said he doesn't believe that disciplining prosecutors more often would do much to deter misconduct.

Let courts do it

Other experts say bar officials prefer to let the courts handle misconduct allegations, or that they are uncomfortable, except in the worst cases, challenging attorneys who are trying to put criminals behind bars. And even though judges are required by professional code to report serious findings of prosecutorial or defense misconduct, bar officials say they don't believe that always happens.
California does not appear to stand out in its rate of attorney discipline. A recent American Bar Association survey of lawyer discipline agencies suggests that the frequency with which California sanctions attorneys ranked in the middle of states that responded. California's rate of disbarring attorneys was lower than the median, but it suspends lawyers and puts them on probation more frequently than many states.

The survey also indicated that California has one of the best-funded bar organizations in the nation, on a per attorney basis.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu, who is running for district attorney, said it is troubling that the California bar so rarely sanctions criminal defense attorneys or prosecutors.
``I think they're very focused on civil litigation and attorneys who take money from clients,'' Sinunu said. ``Few and far between are there cases of criminal defense attorneys or prosecutors getting slapped on the hand for anything.''

``I think the state bar should be more active'' in that realm, Sinunu said.

Sunday, January 20, 2008



TO: Bureau of State Audits
California State Auditor
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814

Case Number: W20080015

June 9, 2006: I was falsely arrested by Riverside County District Attorney Investigator, Twiss while on my way into court to have a provable void on the face restraining order dismissed, INC 057008 Trylison v Stephens, Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA. This invaled order was obtained by the perjury of a Gold Coast Management employee, Darlene Trylison, and a Shadowcrest HOA board member, Kent Robins. HOA attorney, Jan "Gen" Wangler also sat in court, I presume to defend the two against the Charging Affidavit for Perjury I had filed. The judge had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was just a matter of appearing in court. The order was void.The judge had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was only a matter of appearing in court.

The order was void!

refused to let me go before the judge; instead he had me incarcerated in the county jail, with a $500,000 Bail, where -- documented in written complaints -- I suffered terrible physically and emotionally abuse, denial of medical treatment for a heart condition, and later, a deadly staph infection. With no advocacy and no one to protect me I fell into the hands of the Riverside County Public Defender's Office, Indio, CA and sent through the kangaroo-court process of a Preliminary Hearing where I was not allowed to speak, and neophyte attorney, Neil A. Harrison had no idea of how to defend me. Much of the case could have been resolved at this hearing based on the void on the face nature of the cases against me. Every person who testified against me committed provable perjury.

My case was then turned over to Attorney, Melanie Roe.

I would have done better to defend myself, but that was impossible in jail.

When Deputy Public Defender, Melanie Roe did not have time to review my case -- she never met with me, not once, nor did she even speak with me by phone even though I left her a message I had laid on the floor of my cell for hours and was refused medical treatment. Roe was working on a murder case, and in the process of protecting her image in order to advance her career, so, she simply had me committed to Patton State Hospital, stating I was incompetent to go to trial -- even though I had won a four-day criminal jury trial in 1999, INM 089407, People v Stephens, Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, California, as a pro per, and, as a lay-person, was well versed in court procedures.

Attorney, Melanie Roe called upon court-appointed psychologist Michael E. Kania, Ph.D., [he is paid to find FOR the court]. He spent just twenty [20] minutes on a Sunday, (double-time pay) talking with me in jail. He did no testing of my mental state, did not record any of my conversation in his report, or, look into any of my documented records for evidence of what I told him. He simply supported attorney Roe's request and recommended to the court for my commitment.

Once at Patton State Hospital I discovered that ALL fifty [50] of the "patients" in Unit 72 had been placed there under this blatant miscarriage of justice, commitment by their Public Defenders, for basically the same reason, "no time to work on their case!"

An attorney's professional responsibilities are set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 2668; People v. Pope(1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; and In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal 4th 924.

State Bar of California Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems (2005 – 2006) ...An attorney representing an indigent criminal defendant owes allegiance, first and foremost to his or her client. If the attorney cannot represent the client's interests, due to a conflict or otherwise, he or she must refuse the appointment, or immediately withdraw from the case.

The patients of Unit 72 spent the majority of the day going to multiple, useless, and often laughable, repetitious hour-long "classes" on how to recognize who is the judge, the jury, the public defender, the district attorney, etc., in a court setting -- something that can be learned in about a forty-five minute lecture! There is no "group therapy", no "private therapy" and no "assessment" of a person's mental condition, yet we were all labeled as "court incompetent" and often abused by seclusion, strong drugs, and/or restraint and denial of patients' rights, all at the cost to tax payers of about $1,500 a day.

While there I was physically attacked by another patient and even though there is to be a zero tolerance position against violence the person was never arrested and she went on to attack three more women. I did not receive any medical treatment, and my complaints to Executive Director, Octavio C. Luna, and other staff, including Patients' Rights went ignored, and unanswered.

The major statutory duties of the Office of Patients' Rights are contained in Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 5510, 5512, 5513, Title 9 C.C.R. § 864, and Title 9 C.C.R. § 868:

May 2, 2006: The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division; Special Litigation Section completed a investigation of Patton State Hospital, and notified Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California:

We found significant and wide-ranging deficiencies in patient care... Patton fails to provide a reasonably safe environment for its patients. Patient-on-patient violence is commonplace at Patton... Patients also are subject to adverse environmental conditions such as potential suicide hazards and the prevalence of illicit drugs. These problems are long-standing and serious... fails to adequately address inappropriate sexual contact among individuals served at the facility, including sexual contact between staff and patients. This issue, too, is long-standing. The harm that Patton patients experience as a result of these deficiencies is multifaceted, including physical and psychological abuse; physical injury; excessive and inappropriate use of physical and chemical restraints; inadequate, ineffective and counterproductive treatment; and excessively long hospitalizations. our investigation uncovered problems in three main areas of psychiatry: assessments and diagnoses, medication management. Psychiatric assessments and diagnoses at Patton substantially depart from generally accepted professional standards of care. Psychiatrists routinely diagnose their patients as having psychiatric disorders without conducting an adequate psychiatric assessment... we found the overall approach to ongoing psychiatric assessment reflects a lack of critical thinking and clinical inquiry. In many cases we reviewed, the psychiatrist failed to evaluate important developments in a patients condition that woulds suggest that the diagnosis assigned to the patient is not accurate... Patients are routinely prescribed inappropriate or unsafe medications without clinical justification... Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-0195.

Still, men and women are being committed -- warehoused -- in Patton State Hospital by their Public Defenders.

It seems that in this time of economic-downfall in California, someone ought to be looking very closely -- investigating, and analyzing for further review these bogus commitments -- and considering a solution to this stunning WASTE OF STATE MONEY at PATTON STATE HOSPITAL, and by THE PUBLIC DEFENDER.

Also, the following people need to be investigated: Octavio C. Luna, Executive Director; Gary Hahn, Hospital Administrator; Joseph Malancharuvil, Ph.D., Clinical Administrator, and, other staff members who continue to manipulate, and file false reports, filled with lies and fabrications in order to continue and hold people for three to six months, some even longer -- in order to collect these huge sums of money from the State of California.

And, what about the people who fall victim to this remarkable unconstitutional violation of human rights?


Friday, January 18, 2008


Cathedral City! Keep on Keeping on

August 24. 2006
By, JEFF MILLER, ex-Cathedral City Police Officer
filed under CA, Cathedral City PD.
Hi Steve,

It's been awhile since we spoke and I am glad you're still fighting the battle. Feel free to post this message in your guest book. If you recall, I was with Cathedral City PD. After our police union filed a massive Federal lawsuit against our Chief (Stan Henry) , Captain John Holcomb and a few more of his puppet command staff, he (the Chief) went on a Retaliation hit-a-thon!

The 36 page Federal lawsuit [FEDERAL COURT EDCV 02-965, CV 04 02931] was about violations made by the Chief and his staff regarding many issues. Just to name a few for example:
1. Promotions were not handled properly
2. Discipline was inconsistent
3. Programs that were implemented were never followed through in the proper order.
4. Civil Rights violations incurred by individual officers by staff
5. Retaliation by the Chief that violated not only civil rights but violated Federal laws.

Needless to say, I was on the POA [Police Officers Association] board so I was on his target list.

Without going into detail here (its in my book) the Chief attempted to trash me. He spent in excess of $50,000.00 dollars just on the initiating of an internal investigation against me!

After the Riverside County DA'S office rejected a Criminal report sent by the Chief against me, he decided to send it all the way to the Attorney General office. In the report the Chief was charging that I accessed CLETS (CRIMINAL COMPUTER BASED INFO) to run friends of mine for profit and gain. A complete audit of the CLETS system did not show any evidence of anything. The AG and DA'S office told the Chief straight out that there is no crime and no charges can be brought down.

Then the Chief had summoned the assistance of the DA investigators from Riverside County. A search warrant was written for my computer as they thought it contained info that would implicate me having criminal involvement of some kind. I ended up being able to read this search warrant and will tell you it was filled with so many lies it was pathetic. It gets more pathetic then this however.

I will say that I received a medical retirement and was able to get the hell out of that place.

Oh, my Workman's comp settlement finally was agreed upon with strings attached... only if I agreed that I would not sue the City or police department or individuals for anything regarding the IA.

Unreal, in order for me to obtain a end to my situation and obtain what was rightly due me, I had to sign an agreement that basically let them off the hook.

So, not trusting any of the staff at that PD, I had them sign the very same thing to protect myself because if they can lie and get a judge to sign off on a search warrant for an officers computers ip address then they can and will try anything.

The law enforcement field is full of these kind of people and a large percentage of these idiots are in management positions.

My book should be out in print the first of the year. I'll even sign my name to this because I know the brass at CCPD looks at this just out of guilt.

Keep going strong Steve and contact me as I have some info for you regarding a position you may be interested in looking into.


Jeff Miller

Monday, January 14, 2008


We need an ombudsman who can enforce the law, and can dismissbad boards, bad attorneys,and bad management

Letter to Desert Sun
February 10, 2006

An article in the Desert Sun titled: "Legislature votes for Homeowners Association " - January 31, 2006 stated: Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City, said she opposed the (Ombudsman Bill) because she preferred to develop a way to serve homeowners association residents through local offices, where the staff would know the communities better than state officials could. "'I think the best enforcement is done at the local level," Garcia said.

As a founder of HOA Coalition and talking with many homeowners, it is well known that Garcia has done nothing to support any homeowner who has sought her help in her local office in Cathedral City, California.

The organization, California Association of Community Managers (CACM) has done nothing to help homeowners fight against what are all too often unlawful and even criminal behavior of boards, attorneys and management of HOAs.

I attended a class given by, Community Association Institute (CAI) for board members. What was learned in class was how to avoid homeowners' complaints, and get around the civil and corporation codes that regulate the covenants of HOAs.

We need an ombudsman who can enforce the law, and can dismiss bad boards, bad attorneys and management, who are all "educated" by CAI.

Sacramento, California -September 22, 2006

A controversial bill by California Democrats to impose a new tax on 7 million homeowners who live in homeowner associations in California was vetoed by the governor today. Most homeowners objected the bill as it was written to profit the homeowner association industry.

AB 770 by Assemblymember Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) would have imposed a biennial association fee on common interest development associations to fund the Office of the Common Interest Development Ombudsperson. ($24 million) .In his veto message Governor Schwarzenegger wrote:

To Member of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 770 without my signature.

This bill is unnecessary at this time. Recent legislation has been enacted to address various problems cited by the author in proposing this bill, including directives to the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Real Estate to develop an on-line education resource for common interest development board members, as well as a requirement that associations provide dispute resolution procedures. It is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of this recently enacted legislation before creating an entirely new state office.

Additionally, this bill provides no clarification on the type of dispute resolution services that will be provided by the proposed Ombudsman and does not specify the difference between informal dispute resolution required by this bill and formal mediation, which the Ombudsman would not provide.For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Arnold Schwarznegger


A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University
What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.

Zimbardo, P.G. (2007)

How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. The planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely, after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated.

It began on a quiet Sunday morning in August, in Palo Alto, California, where the individual suspects were suddenly arrested, put in the rear of a police car and carried off to the police station -- the sirens wailing.

Volunteers: What these arrested suspects had done was to answer a local newspaper ad calling for volunteers in a study of the psychological effects of prison life. We wanted to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard, in a simulated prison. The applicants from the U.S. and Canada were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse, and would earm $15/day by participating in the study. It is important to remember that at the beginning of our experiment there were no differences between boys assigned to be a prisoner and boys assigned to be a guard.

Constructing the Experiment :To help us closely simulate a prison environment, our prison was constructed by boarding up each end of a corridor in the basement of Stanford's Psychology Department building. That corridor was "The Yard" and was the only outside place where prisoners were allowed to walk, eat, or exercise, except to go to the toilet down the hallway. On the side of the corridor opposite the cells was a small closet which became "The Hole," or solitary confinement. An intercom system buged the cells and was used for public announcement. There were no windows or clocks to judge the passage of time, which later resulted in some time-distorting experiences.

Arrival: Blindfolded and in a state of mild shock The prisoners were brought into our jail one at a time.Each prisoner was systematically searched and stripped naked, and deloused with a spray, to convey our belief that he may have germs or lice; a degradation procedure designed in part to humiliate prisoners. The prisoner was then issued a uniform -- a dress, or smock, which each prisoner wore at all times with no underclothes and an ID number on front and back. -- Real male prisoners don't wear dresses, but they do feel humiliated and emasculated. The number was to minimize each persons individuality. Each prisoner also wore a bolted, heavy chan on his right ankle -- not common in prisons, but used to remind prisoners of the oppressiveness of their environment. Rubber sandals were the footware, and, a stocking cap on their head made from a woman's nylon stocking.

The cells were so small there was only room for three cots, on which the prisoners slept or set, with little room for anything else.

We began with nine guards and nine prisoners.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club, and special Mirror sunglasses that prevented anyone from seeing their eyes or reading their emotions, promoting their anonymity. We were, of course, studying not only the prisoners but also the guards, who found themselves in a new power-laden role.

The first day passed without incident, but on the second day rebellion broke out. Now the problem was, what to do about this rebellion? The guards were angered and frustrated as the prisoners began to taunt and curse them. Psychological tactics began .The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Suddenly there was greater solidarity among the guards, and, it was no longer just an experiment, no longer a simple simulation, and every aspect of the prisoners' behavior fell under the total and arbitrary control of the guards.

Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. When he began to act "crazy," to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. We became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him.

I was sitting there all alone when who should happen along but a colleague and former Yale graduate student roommate, Gordon Bower. Gordon had heard we were doing an experiment, and he came to see what was going on. I briefly described what we were up to, and Gordon asked me a very simple question: "Say, what's the independent variable in this study?"

To my surprise, I got really angry at him. The security of my men and the stability of my prison was at stake, and now, I had to deal with this bleeding-heart, liberal, academic, effete dingdong who was concerned about the independent variable! It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point -- I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist. NOTE: What are the dangers of the principal investigator assuming the role of prison superintendent?

We had heard a rumor of a prison break but it never materialized. How did we react to this mess? With considerable frustration and feelings of dissonance over the effort we had put in to no avail. Someone was going to pay for this. The guards again escalated, very noticeably their level of harassment, forcing the prisoners to do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning out toilet bowls with their bare hands, do push-ups, jumping jacks, and increased the length of their counts to several hours each.

I invited a Catholic priest to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. He interviewed each prisoner individually, and I watched in amazement as half the prisoners introduced themselves by number rather than name. The priest's visit further blurred the line between role-playing and reality.

Prisoner #819, was feeling sick, refused to eat, and wanted to see a doctor. He was persuaded to come out of his cell and while talking to us, he broke down and began to cry hysterically, just as had the other two boys we released earlier. I took the chain off his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. I said that I would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor. One of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud: "Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. They shouted this statement in unison a dozen times. I raced back to the room where I had left him, and what I found was a boy sobbing uncontrollably. The chanting was marked by utter confomity and compliance, as if a single voice saying, "#819 is bad."

Parole Board:The Board was composed mainly of people who were strangers to the prisoners (departmental secretaries and graduate students) and was headed by our top prison consultant.
Several remarkable things occurred during these parole hearings: First, when we asked prisoners whether they would forfeit the money they had earned up to that time if we were to parole them, most said yes. Then, when we ended the hearings by telling prisoners to go back to their cells while we considered their requests, every prisoner obeyed, even though they could have obtained the same result by simply quitting the experiment. Why did they obey? Because they felt powerless to resist. Their sense of reality had shifted, and they no longer perceived their imprisonment as an experiment.

By the fifth day: A new relationship had emerged between prisoners and guards. The guards now fell into their job more easily -- a job which at times was boring and at times was interesting.
The guards appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet none of our preliminary personality tests were able to predict this behavior.

NOTE: In 2003 U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, 20 miles west of Baghdad. The prisoners were stripped, made to wear bags over their heads, and sexually humiliated while the guards laughed and took photographs.
How could the guards move so readily into their roles? How could intelligent, mentally healthy, "ordinary" men become perpetrators of evil so quickly?

Prisoners' Coping Styles:Prisoners coped with their feelings of frustration and powerlessness in a variety of ways. At first, some prisoners rebelled or fought with the guards. Four prisoners reacted by breaking down emotionally as a way to escape the situation. One prisoner developed a psychosomatic rash over his entire body when he learned that his parole request had been turned down. Others tried to cope by being good prisoners, doing everything the guards wanted them to do. By the end of the study, the prisoners were disintegrated, both as a group and as individuals. There was no longer any group unity; just a bunch of isolated individuals hanging on, much like prisoners of war or hospitalized mental patients.

The guards had won total control of the prison, and they commanded the blind obedience of each prisoner.

One Final Act of Rebellion : Prisoner #416 coped by going on a hunger strike to force his release. After several unsuccessful attempts to get #416 to eat, the guards threw him into solitary confinement for three hours, even though their own rules stated that one hour was the limit. Still, #416 refused. At this point #416 should have been a hero to the other prisoners. But instead, the others saw him as a troublemaker. The head guard then exploited this feeling by giving prisoners a choice. They could have #416 come out of solitary if they were willing to give up their blanket, or they could leave #416 in solitary all night. NOTE: Most elected to keep their blanket and let their fellow prisoner suffer in solitary all night. (We intervened later and returned #416 to his cell.)

On the fifth night, at this point it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation -- a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the "good" guards felt helpless to intervene, and none of the guards quit while the study was in progress. Indeed, it should be noted that no guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work.

I ended the study prematurely for two reasons:
, we had learned through videotapes that the guards were escalating their abuse of prisoners in the middle of the night when they thought no researchers were watching and the experiment was "off." Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners.

, Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw our prisoners being marched on a toilet run, bags over their heads, legs chained together, hands on each other's shoulders. Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!" Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality. Once she countered the power of the situation, however, it became clear that the study should be ended.

After only six days
, our planned two-week prison simulation was called off.

On the last day, we held a series of encounter sessions, first with all the guards, then with all the prisoners (including those who had been released earlier), and finally with the guards, prisoners, and staff together. We did this in order to get everyone's feelings out in the open, to recount what we had observed in each other and ourselves, and to share our experiences, which to each of us had been quite profound.

In the encounter sessions, all the prisoners were happy the experiment was over, but most of the guards were upset that the study was terminated prematurely.

Two months after the study, here is the reaction of prisoner #416, our would-be hero who was placed in solitary confinement for several hours:"I began to feel that I was losing my identity, that the person that I called "Clay," the person who volunteered to go into this prison -- still is a prison to me. I don't regard it as an experiment or a simulation -- it was a prison run by psychologists instead of the state. I began to feel that identity, the person that I was, that had decided to go to prison was distant from me -- was remote until finally I was 416. I was really my number"

Compare his reaction to that of the following prisoner who wrote to me from an Ohio penitentiary after being in solitary confinement for an inhumane length of time: "I was recently released from solitary confinement after being held therein for thirty-seven months. The silence system was imposed upon me and if I even whispered to the man in the next cell resulted in being beaten by guards, sprayed with chemical mace, black jacked, stomped, and thrown into a strip cell naked to sleep on a concrete floor without bedding, covering, wash basin, or even a toilet....I know that thieves must be punished, and I don't justify stealing even though I am a thief myself. But now I don't think I will be a thief when I am released. No, I am not rehabilitated either. It is just that I no longer think of becoming wealthy or stealing. I now only think of killing -- killing those who have beaten me and treated me as if I were a dog. I hope and pray for the sake of my own soul and future life of freedom that I am able to overcome the bitterness and hatred which eats daily at my soul. But I know to overcome it will not be easy."

Terminated on August 20, 1971:After observing our simulated prison for only six days, we could understand how prisons dehumanize people, turning them into objects and instilling in them feelings of hopelessness.

And as for guards, we realized how ordinary people could be readily transformed from the good Dr. Jekyll to the evil Mr. Hyde.

In the decades since this experiment took place, prison conditions and correctional policies in the United States have become even more punitive and destructive, with more Americans -- some who are innocent -- in prisons than ever before.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Open Letter to HOA Attorney's on RICO Charges

Back To Court/Void Judgments Never Die

I was notified this morning that there is more documented proof that the homeowner association (HOA) lawyers, Ron Green, Jeffery French, and Brian Moreno have stolen more than $20,000 from me, in their defense of an illegal, void on the face judgment with Shadow Crest Homeowners Association by committing RICO, which has become a broad term with regards to "racketerring activity" under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961

When I approached the Riverside County District Attorney with prior facts and proof, they said I must first file a police report with Cathedral City Police Department.

I went with four members of my HOA and met with Sergeant Earl Moss; he refused to take any reports, stating it is "a civil matter!"

RICO is a criminal matter!

Every corporation formed in California, including a mutual benefit corporation, such as a homeowners association, is to be registered with the California Secretary of State's office. This is called the "Statement By Domestic Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation". The requirement for this filing has been in place for many years. Every contract made in this state by a taxpayer during the time that the taxpayer's corporate powers, rights and privileges are suspended or forfeited pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5 or 23775 shall, subject to Section 23304.5, be voidable at the instance of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer." Section 23304.5 requires that a lawsuit be brought by the other party in order for the contract to be voided.

On or about October 2004 I discovered that Shadowcrest HOA was suspended as a corportation, between May 2002 and February 2004 and brought this to the attention of the association board, the property management company, and particularly to the offices of the attorneys, Green, Bryant & French; Palm Springs and San Diego, CA.

I was ignored!

A corporation suspended may not do any business, bring or defend any lawsuit. Palm Valley Homeowners Association v Design MTC (2001) 85 Cal Appeal 4th. 553, 102 Cal Rptr. 2nd 350 and, California Corporation Code 8210

When I was ignored, I went into Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA, and on April 17, 2005 did bring to the attention of the attorneys and Judge Christopher Sheldon that Shadowcrest HOA was suspended on the above dates and filed a motion to dismiss the illegal attorney fees.


Judge Christopher Sheldon found in favor of Attorney Brian Moreno.

Please view this case file: ALL attorneys mentioned above, as well as Attorney Jan "Gen" Wangler, who was under an ethical obligation, supported by case law to make a reasonable inquiry into the truth and facts of the case before proceeding on December 7, 2005. She knew I was unable to make an appearance in court on this date.

These attorneys have committed fraud on the court, are in violation of Business & Professional Code 6100, 6104, 6127 and, Rule 5-200 (B), and staturoy and case law.

It seems Attorney Jeffery French has been heard to say "all of the business of Shadowcrest and Sharon Stephens is water under the bridge..."

NOPE! Void on the face judgments NEVER DIE IN CALIFORNIA, and, CCP 473 and 473a has no direct reference to void judgments, there is no statue of limitations on challenging a void order! Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194

When I receive the documentation I shall see if I must still first file a report with Cathedral City Police Department.