ABUSE BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

With the help of Riverside County District Attorney

Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker,
it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it breeds anarchy.
(Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 485; Brandeis DISSENTING OP.)

A BRIEF TIME LINE

Most of this abuse is documented on video tape by the Sheriff's Office

For several years I had been battling with my homeowners' association, Shadowcrest HOA over abuses of power by board members, illegal use of CC&Rs, misuse of funds, and harassment of women and children.

On January 28, 2006 there was a scheduled open homeowners meeting that I was planning to attend with the intention of continuing to speak out about what I was observing.

All of the association board members had requested, and received bogus, void on the face restraining orders with the intent to keep me out of board meetings. I was, and I am still in the process of fighting these orders in court. All restraining order must meet statutory, legislative criteria to be granted, and may be challenged. They may not be used to keep homeowners out of open board meetings. The Riverside Superior Court in Indio hand these out with no regard for the law, or the consequences to people's lives.

To keep me from attending the meeting, on January 27, Kent Robins, Board President, James Hooten, Vice President, and Jose Liceaga, Treasurer called the police and had me falsely arrested by fabricating a story that I had tried to run over them with my automoble. (This case was later dropped, and closed by the police.)

JAN 27, 2006: I was arrested and taken to Riverside County Jail, Indio, CA. I needed, but was denied medical treatment for angina by Corp. Maggie Beviens. So, I scratched my wrist with my fingernail in hopes of getting treatment. Instead I was stripped of all my clothing, strapped down in a Restraint Chair for more than an hour and then locked in a filthy dirty, rubberized dry cell for twelve more hours, and then transferred into a total lock-down cell, in twenty-four hour isolation, for four days. I was released when it was decided the case needed more investigation. I filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office, and with the District Attorney in Indio. I received no response. The Riverside County District Attorney has refused me any help since I won a four-day criminal trail against Deputy District Attorney, Archi Wong, as a pro per as a pro per. (CASE: INM 089407, Indio Superior Court, California, 06/10/1999 )

Solitary confinement of inmate in dry cell to punish for self-inflicted wounds is unconstitutional. Hancock v. Avery (M.D. Tenn 1969) 301 F. Supp 786, 791)

MAY 15, 2006: I was challenging a void on the face restraining order of Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, ( INC 043179, Riverside County Superior Court; Indio, CA ) was arrested and booked and was supposed to be released. Instead I was locked in a 3X3 steel cage by Corp Erdralin where he continued to provoke me, calling me names, laughing at me, reminding me of my complaint about Maggie Beviens, and denying me my heart medication. I was transferred to JFK hospital, but was battered by transporting deputies and there is a doctors report that documents my injuries when I was dropped on my knees in the parking lot. I filed another complaint with the Sheriff's Office. These deputies had "a deliberate indifferance to my serious medical condition" Esterrle v Gamble (1976) 429 US 97 50 L Ed251, 97 S.Ct 285

JUNE 8, 2006: I was falsely arrested by District Attorney Investigator Rich Twiss on my way into court to dismiss a void on the face restraining order by Gold Coast Management ( Trylson v Stephens INC057008 Riverside County Superior Court, Indio CA ) The judge had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was void! I was supposed to be booked and released so that I could return to court to have my case heard. Instead I again fell into the hands of Corp. Maggie Beviens who refused to allow me any phone calls [I was not allowed a phone call until June 22] I reminded Corp. Beviens that I would file another complaint against her. She just laughed stating she had read my complaint, and locked me in a cell with no phone.

When I insisted on medical treatment for angina she refused and instead was strapped into a Restraint Chair and placed into a rubberized dry cell for over an hour. When I was pulled out I had an outbreak of hives due to nerves and I began to scratch my arms and was immediately strapped back into the Restraint Chair, with Maggie telling me I was inflicting these hives on myself, again placing me in the dry cell for another hour. During this time I was not allowed to use the toilet, and was given no medical treatment for my ongoing angina attack, nor any water, and refused any toilet use. That was two hours without any toilet use, no water and no medical treatment for angina -- for what was called self-inflicted wounds.

When I was pulled out by Corp. Erdralin, and while still strapped down, after calling me a "cunt" he immediately began to provoke and mock me by laughing in my face, and pointing at me. I felt like an abused powerless animal, and was in fear that he would harm me. In self-defense I spit on him. I was in a lot of pain from being strapped down for two hours and emotionally under a great deal of distress from the hives, and having to urinate on myself. I had a psychotic break with reality. The Court of Appeal has held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence..." People v Cohen 1 Cal. App. 3d, at 99-100, 81 Cal. Rptr., at 506. "...provocation maliciously to bring about harm if resisted, which is likely to lead to retaliation." Foutch v State 95 Tenn 711, 34 SW 423

Charges were filed against me: INF054715 Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA.

It has been noted: An unethical, overzealous District Attorney is the most powerful and dangerous person in the court room. He can make, break or ruin a person's life.

Deputy District Attorney, Kristi Elise Belcher, and Deputy District Attorney James Michael Graff-Radford both participated in prosecutorial misconduct, and a vindictive prosecution doing nothing to promote justice, or to have a fair trial. They filed a sham case, and even fraudulently concealed evidence from the court and the defense attorneys: They had a thirty-page document that had been given to them by Detective DeVeares of CCPD regarding the car incident in Shadowcrest; CCPD had closed the case! They knew that in the Liceaga case I was provably the victim; his own witness testified against him in the police report. Still the District Attorney went forward trying to prosecute me for that case. That is malicious prosecution, and, wilful misconduct -- deliberate disobedience to the law -- with knowledge that such will result in harm, with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences.

The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers. A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.)’ ” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.) “Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... ‘The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...’ ” (People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.) “The prosecutor’s job isn’t just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules.” (United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323.) As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility… to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial… (United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.) Fraud by District Attorney: Fraudulent use of process -- using legal process for fraudulent purposes such as attempting to enforce a judgment on a fictitious claim. 1 AM J2d Abuse PSS 9-12. To be continued in formal complaint...

After my ordeal in Indio Jail I was transferred to County Jail in Riverside. After an hour drive, when I arrived I could not exit the transport van immediately and told the deputies I was suffering from angina. (I have had open heart surgery) I was pulled from the van and hit my head and neck on the ground, pulled up and forced to run down the hall to a rubber cell, with no water and no toilet paper, stripped of my cloths, and left there for about ten hours. I was not given any medical treatment.

JUNE 29, 2006: I was battered again by Corp. Maggie Beviens while deputies stood in a tight circle around us to hide from video camera. She twisted, and twisted my wrist as I screamed in pain and she ran her other hand over my breasts.

JULY 8, 2006: (Video taped) Again I was battered by Corp. Maggie Beviens, Sgt. Levin, Deputy Sada, and Deputy Rodriquez, when forced into the back of a transport van with no air conditioning. The temperature outside was 119 degrees. I was driven for over an hour back to Jail in the City of Riverside, and when I arrived I had to be transported to Riverside Community Hospital for angina and heat related stress, and remainded in the hospital for four days. There were no other passengers in the van and I could have been placed inside of the air-conditioned area.

AUGUST 16, 2006: I contracted a staph infection in which I broke out in boils on my buttocks and legs. I laid on the floor of my cell from 12 noon until 9:00 PM, with the dry heaves, unable to get up. Lt. Wilshite and his deputies refused to get me any medical treatment. It was days later that I saw a doctor and finally given antibiotics, but was never transfered to the hospital. It was determined that it was Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, or MRSA, that is highly contagious and resistant to medication. "A prisoner has a constituional right to medical care... to allow any lack of care whatever is a crime" People v McMillan (1941) App Dept. Sup Ct 45 Cal App 2d Supp 821m 114 P2d 440); Penal Code 673

The Public Defender's Office was well aware of these abuses and did nothing to help.

AUGUST 21, 2006: (Video taped) I fell down and hit my head. I lay handcuffed on the floor, but was refused medical help from nurse. Handcuffs too tight. Continued to knock on door, but was ignored. Finally I was literally slammed into a Restraint Chair and put into a cell. The handcuffs and straps were so tight I was screaming; they left huge bruises on my arms and legs. (Deputy Staggs from Riverside Jail was a witness and took video.)

SEPTEMBER 22, 2006: (Video taped) I was placed in Black Box Handcuffs, unable to move, from 8:00 AM until 4:30 PM, and was placed in an Attorney Conference Booth and was denied use of the toilet, water and medical help for angina. I had terrible bruises on my wrists and arms. Penal Code 673

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: (Video taped) Deputies, under the direction of Sgt. Levin, and Corp Erdilin locked me in a filthy, dirty, freezing cold basement cell while I was in a spit-mask and mittens restricting my use of the toilet and the water fountain. I repeatedly told the deputies that I was very ill with diarrhea and needed to use the toilet. They refused to come to my aide and I defecated in my pants. The deputies laughed and still refused me any help. There is no need to keep an inmate in a spit-mask and mittens while they are detained in a locked solitary cell, but this happened to me several times. "Prisoners may not be subjected to 'cruel, corporal or unusal punishhment" Fergusen (1961) 55 cAL 2D 663, 12 cAL rPTR. 753, 361 p2D 417

My entire time, over a year, in Riverside County Jail was spent in 24 hour a day, solitary lock-down. "All inmates are to be allowed at least 2 1/2 hours of recreation outside, a week" (Inmates of Riv.Co. Jail Indio v Ben Clark, as Sheriff and Appeal. 144 CAl App. 3d 850; 192 Calk Rptr. 823; 1983 Cal App - Lexis 1877 No27464)

I believe I was subjected to this cruel and inhumane treatment in jail because I made complaints about these deputies to the Sheriff's Department. I have copies of all the written complaints I made while in jail -- they were never answered.

To be continued...

.

OVERVIEW OF ABUSE OF PRISONERS

In the past we heard of these types of maltreatments of prisoners
only in countries like China, Russia, South America or the third world – what has happened that we now allow for these horrible Abuses in America?

For the purposes of this [United Nations] Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Under 15 CCR 3391, employees shall be alert, courteous, and professional in their dealings with inmates. They shall never refer to inmates by derogatory or slang references, nor shall they use indecent, abusive, profane or otherwise improper language. Employees shall avoid irresponsible or unethical conduct.

Yet, it is not unusual for Guards to resort to baiting inmates into punishable actions, use derogatory remarks, sexually explicit language, profanity, racial epithets, reference to individual’s family members and name-calling -- the guards don’t threaten you with violence anymore; they just provoke you into it. It’s your word against theirs, and they can always doctor their reports.

Stanford Prison Experiment:
As was demonstrated with the experiment conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1973 at the Stanford university, a number of case studies on the effects of prison life have also indicated that imprisonment can be brutal, demeaning, and generally psychologically a devastating experience for many individuals. Psychological symptoms described in these studies, which are believed to be directly caused by imprisonment include psychosis, severe depression, inhibiting anxiety, and complete social withdrawal.

The Stanford Prison experiment was aimed to examine the power of roles, rules, symbols, group identity and situational validation of behavior. Two dozen university students, judged to be most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate. Some became prisoners and others were guards, and the basement of the psychology department was turned into a prison. Guards were dressed in uniform while prisoners wore dresses and no underpants to take away their masculinity. They had a chain on one foot to remind them of the repression of being in prison.
The experiment was going to last for two weeks however it ended after 6 days. After 5 days, several prisoners experienced an emotional breakdown. They cried hysterically, had disorganized thinking, they smashed their heads on the walls and refused to eat. The guards showed no concerns or sympathy towards the prisoner, and accused them of malingering.

The experiment showed that normal average, healthy males became too powerful when they had the role of being the guards. http://www.prisonexp.org/

Dry Cells and Pro-straint Chairs:
Referring to the pro-restraint chair, Stuart Katz, a lawyer who successfully sued the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department for its use in 2000 said, "It’s a Spanish Inquisition technology with sort of a late 20th century advertising spin,"

In May 2000, the United Nations (UN) Committee against Torture issued recommendations to the US Government, one of which was to abolish use of restraint chairs as a method of restraining people in custody, on the ground that their use led to breaches of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment .

The American Correctional Association (ACA) standards also ban the use of restraints as punishment, and state that four-point restraint should be used only in extreme instances and only when other types of restraint have proven to be ineffective and should not be applied in any event ''for more time than is absolutely necessary''.

The chairs are routinely used in some facilities to punish or control prisoners who are disruptive but not a danger to themselves or others.

In 2002, Amnesty International documented 11 cases where the restraint chair was a factor in inmate deaths. Today, Amnesty has documented 19 restraint chair-related deaths in the past decade. Amnesty International is calling on all authorities to restrict or ban the use of restraint chairs in their facilities. They are concerned that prisoners are subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the USA's obligations under international human rights standards and treaties --

The International Covenant on Civil and political Rights to which the USA is a state party specifies that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7) as does the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.

Jails stop restraint chair use…Devices linked to deaths of 3 inmates in 10 years
Lindsey Collom, The Arizona Republic Aug. 22, 2006: Restraint chairs that have been connected to at least three inmate deaths will no longer be used in Maricopa County jails. Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Monday said that the controversial chairs used since the 1970s have been replaced with beds…

In March, a federal court jury awarded $9 million to the parents of Charles Agster III, who died in 2001 after being strapped into a restraint chair at a Maricopa County jail. It was second time in a decade that the county and Sheriff's Office had to pay millions of dollars from lawsuits stemming from the deaths of inmates strapped into the devices.

In January 1999, the county settled for $8.25 million in the 1996 death of Scott Norberg. Autopsies of both men indicated they died of positional asphyxia. Both also had meth in their systems. Arpaio contends that it was the drugs and not the restraint device that triggered their deaths.

Attorney Michael Manning, who represented the Agster and Norberg families, said Arpaio has "finally gotten the message that (the chairs) are utterly inappropriate and lethal." Manning said his clients' would not have pursued lawsuits "had the sheriff just apologized to them and made these changes so other kids wouldn't die, so this is very gratifying," Manning said. "It's tragic that it's taken this long."

Restraint chairs have been utilized in county jails since the 1970s, but Arpaio said he feels it was "time to move in the direction of what many hospitals and psychiatric wards do to restrain combative people."

Until now, Maricopa County jails have used safe beds only to restrain psychiatric patients. The restraint chair was thought of as a "good tool" and still is, Arpaio said.But Amnesty International has urged authorities to restrict or ban the use of restraint chairs until the federal government initiates a national inquiry into the use of the devices in U.S. detention and correctional facilities.
http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jhtml?qid=CB1F6AC20F9D7F0BC216D91C2931A8C5&searchfor=Restraint+Chair&action=pick&pn=3&ptnrS=ZNxdm006YYUS&st=bar&cb=ZN&pg=AJweb&ord=8&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEVny8Kec5qYVMBTtAVaM%2B96e2ejQj%20

Solitary Confinement
In solitary, prisoners are locked in small, claustrophobic cells 24 hours a day ... One CIA researcher in Canada, Dr. Donald Hebb, discovered, the effect of isolation on the brain function of the prisoner is much like that which occurs if he is beaten, starved, or deprived of sleep.

He found that normal brain function is severely impaired if a person is deprived of the complex sensory stimulation of normal social environments. In fact, the CIA’s psychiatrist found that sensory deprivation can produce major mental and behavioral changes in man and produces psychosis more naturally and consistently than drugs and physical torture.

The CIA embodied the findings of these and other studies in its 1963 torture manual KUBORK: Counterintelligence Interrogation" where it confirmed that: 1. The deprivation of sensory stimuli induces stress; 2. The stress becomes unbearable to most subjects; 3. The subject a growing need for physical and social stimuli, and, 4. Some subjects progressively lose touch with reality, focus inwardly, and produce delusions, hallucinations, and other pathological effects.

The nature of being housed in a 6X 10 foot cell for 23 or 24 hours a day disposes prisoners to losing touch with reality and exhibiting signs and symptoms of psychiatric decompensation. The psychological effects of severe and prolonged social isolation and reduced environmental stimulation commonly lead to the development of psychosis-like symptoms, including anxiety, hyper-responsiveness to external stimuli, perceptual distortions and hallucinations, a feeling of unreality, difficulty with concentration and memory, acute confusional states, motor excitement, violent destructive or self-mutilatory outbursts, and rapid subsidence of symptoms upon termination of isolation.

The Human Rights Committee ruled that solitary confinement of just one month in a cell with 24 hour a day artificial light was torture.

The European Convention on Human Rights said ...complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can destroy the personality. http://www.ohchr.org/english/

The existence and scope of these conditions are also in opposition to guidelines for treatment set in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners...

Dr. Stuart Grassian, an expert on the results of living in extended isolation, has commented at length on the psychiatric harm that can come to people subjected to long-term isolation. He interviewed people who began to cut themselves just so they can "feel" something and reports panic attacks and a progressive inability to tolerate ordinary stimulation. Isolation has been documented as a cause of paranoia, problems with impulse control, extreme motor restlessness, delusions, suspiciousness, confusion, and depression. I have treated a number of ex-control unit prisoners who come out with serious symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress. http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-09%20FALL/solitary.html
.

PSYCHIATRIC EFFECTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

Stuart Grassian, M.D.
401 Beacon Street
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3976
e-mail:stgrassian@aol.com

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS

September 1993 in Madrid v. Gomez, 889F.Supp.1146

In my opinion, solitary confinement - that is confinement of a prisoner alone in a cell for all or nearly all of the day, with minimal environmental stimulation and minimal opportunity for social interaction - can cause severe psychiatric harm. This harm includes a specific syndrome which has been reported by many clinicians in a variety of settings, all of which have in common features of inadequate, noxious and/or restricted environmental and social stimulation. In more severe cases, this syndrome is associated with agitation, self-destructive behavior, and overt psychotic disorganization.

In addition, solitary confinement often results in severe exacerbation of a previously existing mental condition, or in the appearance of a mental illness where none had been observed before. Even among inmates who do not develop overt psychiatric illness as a result of confinement in in solitary, such confinement almost inevitably imposes significant psychological pain during the period of isolated confinement and often significantly impairs the inmate's capacity to adapt successfully to the broader prison environment.

Moreover, although many of the acute symptoms suffered by these inmates are likely to subside upon termination of solitary confinement, many -- including some who did not become overtly psychiatrically ill during their confinement in solitary -- will likely suffer permanent harm as a result of such confinement.

This harm is most commonly manifested by a continued intolerance of social interaction, a handicap which often prevents the inmate from successfully readjusting to the broader social environment of general population in prison and, perhaps more significantly, often severely impairs the inmate's capacity to reintegrate into the broader community upon release from imprisonment.

In my experience, many inmates housed in such stringent conditions are extremely fearful of
acknowledging the psychological harm or stress they are experiencing as a result of such confinement.

This reluctance of inmates in solitary confinement is in substantial measure a response to the perception that such confinement is an overt attempt by authorities to "break them down" psychologically, and in my experience, tends to be more severe when the inmate experiences the stringencies of his confinement as being the product of an arbitrary exercise of power, rather than the fair result of an inherently reasonable process. Furthermore, in solitary confinement settings, mental health screening interviews are often conducted at the cell front, rather than in a private setting, and inmates are generally quite reluctant to disclose psychological distress in the context of such an interview, since such conversation would inevitably be heard by other inmates in adjacent cells, exposing them to possible stigma and humiliation in front of their fellow inmates.

Lastly, the adverse impact of punitively imposed solitary confinement will often be more severe than the effect of such confinement when it is imposed for administrative purposes, since by intent, punitive solitary confinement imposes stringencies and deprivations which are in excess of those which are minimally required to maintain an inmate in segregated confinement; such stringencies often include limitations on programming, occupational and education opportunities, visitation, use of telephone, television and radio access, and access to reading materials, among others. Conversely, inmates housed in segregation for administrative reasons - such as for the protection of the inmate himself from possible harm by other inmates - will often retain access to many of the same opportunities and privileges which are provided to inmates in congregate housing.

Indeed,the institutional policies which create different conditions in administrative segregation, as opposed to punitive segregation, reflect an important underlying reality - that "institutional security" actually is employed to mean two very different things. The narrower usage of the terms reflects concerns about the safety of the individual inmate being housed, as well as the safety of those with whom he has contact.

The broader use of the term, however, is fundamentally unbounded - or at least, has boundaries which are not really distinguishable from the broad purposes of any system of criminal justice.

The harsh stringencies which are employed in punitive segregation reflect institutional assumptions that the harshly painful deprivations associated with a sentence to punitive solitary confinement, will serve as a deterrence to other in mates who might be tempted to break institutional rules. This rationale for imposing pain on an offender - the rationale that the punishment of this offender might deter other possible offenders - is simply a rationale for any system of criminal justice and punishment.

A multiyear sentence of punitive solitary confinement is an imposition of pain of staggering proportions, and it is imposed without the due process safeguards which anchor our system of criminal justice...

...I have since published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals.These are: 1. Grassian, S. (1983). "Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement." American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454. 2. Grassian, S., & Friedman, N. (1986). "Effects of Sensory Deprivation in Psychiatric Seclusion and Solitary Confinement." International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 49-65.

DECLARATION OF
DR. STUART GRASSIAN

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

TORTURE IN THE U.S.
by Bonnie Kerness

How does one go about articulating desperation to another who is not desperate? How does one go about artriculating the psychological stress of knowing that people are waiting for me to self-destruct?
I did not do anything to deserve this. --
Isolation prisoner, Ojore Nuru Lutalo

PICTURE LIVING IN A CAGE the size of your bathroom, with tiers of single cages above, below, and to either side. You remain in this cage nearly 24 hours a day, day in and day out, year in and year out. Ruchelle Magee lived under these conditions in California for more than 20 years.

Russell Shoats has been living in various Pennsylvania isolation units for 17 years.

Ojore Lutalo in the Management Control Unit (MCU) in New Jersey just began his 13th year living in extended isolation--and he has never been charged with an infraction.

The use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons began in 1829, based on the early Quaker religious philosophy that solitary introspection would lead to penitence and reform. It soon became clear that people in isolation often suffer mental breakdown, so the general practice of isolation was abandoned. However, isolation as a means of administrative control continued and has grown to alarming proportions.

In more recent times, abuse of isolation is combined with behavioral modification programs, including physical beatings, use of devices of torture, and psychological abuse. In 1972, the first official "control unit" was opened in Marion Federal Prison in Illinois as a behavior modification experimental unit. Similar units began opening in state prisons across the country including the Management Control Unit in New Jersey.

In 1983, in response to an isolated incident of violence, the entire prison at Marion was "locked down"--all prisoners locked in cells 24 hours a day without human contact. That lock down has never been lifted.

In 1995, a new federal high tech prison in Florence, Colorado, took over the "mission" of Marion and purports to house the "most predatory" prisoners in the U.S. Here, people are kept in nearly total isolation for years, many in soundproof cells. There is little interaction with anyone other than prison staff. Visits, telephone calls, and mail from family and friends are severely restricted, as are educational, recreational, and religious services. The federal model of control units has been adopted by over 40 states throughout the country, often taking the form of supermax, or maxi-maxi prisons.

Although litigation concerning control units has been sporadic, ongoing, and not too promising, there have been successes in the fight against them.

In 1989, the women's small-group isolation prison in Lexington, Kentucky, designed specifically for women political prisoners, was closed by legal, political, and moral battles waged by a broad coalition of people.

In January 1995, in Madrid v. Gomez, a federal court in California condemned the pattern of brutality and neglect at Pelican Bay Prison and called upon the state to discontinue excessive force and punitive treatment such as cell extractions and shackling prisoners to toilets and called for changes in grossly inadequate medical and mental health care.

The development of control units can be traced to the tumultuous years of the civil rights movement, during which time many activists found themselves in U.S. prisons.

We believe this use of isolation stems directly from the brain-washing techniques used during the Korean War. Sensory deprivation as a form of behavior modification was used extensively for imprisoned members of the Black Panther party, members of Black Liberation Army formations, members of the Puerto Rican Independence Movement, members of the American Indian Movement, white activists, jail house lawyers, Islamic militants, and prison activists. At one time or another, they all found themselves living in extended isolation, sometimes for years on end. Many political prisoners still live in isolation, not because they have received charges for infractions, but because of who they are and what they believe.

The experiment in solitary confinement expanded throughout the country in the form of supermax prisons--entire prisons that force people to live in complete isolation. Prisoners cannot see or hear another human being unless or until the administration decides that they can. The fastest growing population living in enforced solitude is perhaps youth of color imprisoned as a result of the racist crack-cocaine laws. Most of these youngsters received unconscionably long sentences. Their consequent anger tends to lead them into real or imagined infractions shortly after their imprisonment, resulting in their placement in sensory deprivation supermax prisons.

The mentally ill are another population increasingly placed in isolation. Many of them are not able to cope with the rules of free society, and they fare far worse once in prison. Unable to follow prison regulations, they end up being charged with endless infractions, often receiving sanctions requiring years in solitary confinement. In New Jersey, Frank Hunter died in an isolation unit after being forced to commit sexual acts for food. He didn't know who or where he was when he died. At Pelican Bay in California, Vaughn Dortch, an emotionally disturbed prisoner, was treated to a scalding "bath" by guards to wash off excrement that he had spread over his body. That bath burned off 30% of his skin.

The latest effort to multiply the number of people living in isolation involves the alleged spread of the "gang problem" in U.S. prisons. While most of us who deal with prison issues know of gangs in prisons, we also watch this "problem" being created, as well as enhanced, by many facilities. New Jersey, for instance, is building a new 750 bed "gang unit." In order to fill this new unit, they are rounding up people for interviews to determine "gang membership." New Jersey has never had a gang problem. Prisoners report that the Department of Corrections uses various counterintelligence tactics to create one, and guards start rumors provoking one group against another. This trend, repeated throughout the country, results in more supermax prisons being built.

We have been told by Corrections personnel that the nationwide move to expand the use of isolation is being fostered to a great extent by guard unions, which now contribute heavily to political campaigns of "law-and-order" candidates. Various forms of lobbying secure the necessary support to build new solitary confinement units or prisons. Guards report feeling that these units provide a safe working environment. Advocates and monitors of prisons report that control units also provide a place in which prison staff can commit atrocities unobserved.The goal of these units is clearly to disable prisoners through spiritual, psychological and/or physical breakdown. This is accomplished by arbitrary placement in isolation; years of solitary or small group isolation from both prison and outside communities; extremely limited access to education, worship, or vocational training; physical torture, such as forced cell extractions, strap-downs, hog-tying, beating after restraint, and provocation of violence between prisoners; mental torture, such as sensory deprivation, forced idleness, verbal harassment, mail tampering, disclosure of confidential information, confessions forced under torture, and threats against family members; sexual intimidation and violence, usually against women prisoners by male guards using strip searches, verbal sexual harassment, sexual touching, and rape as a means of control.

In recent years, we have seen a duplication of these horrendous conditions.

Throughout the country, for instance, when control unit prisoners leave their cage, they are strip-searched, even when there is no contact with anyone but prison staff. Oscar Lopez, a Puerto Rican political prisoner reported being searched rectally three times going to a window visit and three times returning. At the time, Oscar hadn't been in the direct company of another human being for months. Prisoners at the Ohio women's prison report the use of restraint tables for women who are "misbehaving." Ray Luc Levasseur, now contained in the Florence, Colorado ADX federal prison, testifies, "It seems endless, each morning, behind the same gray door, listening to the same grating noises provoked by steel bruising steel. At this moment, there is someone in ADX, perhaps me, who suffers oppressive weight that buckles the knees. He may be bent over, arms clasped behind the back, pawed, prodded, stripped, commanded, gassed, stunned by projectile gun, bar coded, boxed in concrete, or leaning heavily against a plexiglass partition that prevents touching grandmother, father, or child. The unnatural construction and evil intent of ADX lies hidden at the rear of this federal complex.

You know where it is because you've followed the links in the human chain thru the poorest communities, the darkest skin, the youngest blood--straight to hell in the form of children's prisons, penitentiaries, control units, and execution chambers.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the American Friends Service Committee, the National Lawyers Guild, California Prison Focus, and many other groups and individuals have joined with the World Organization Against Torture to express their concern. The World Organization Against Torture is currently writing a report on United States' compliance with the United Nations Covenants this country has signed. For instance, the U.S. ratified the International Convention Against Torture in 1994, but does not comply, continuing to use punitive violence and brutality in control unit facilities, cell extractions, mistreatment of the mentally ill, chemical sprays and dangerous methods of restraint. The existence and scope of these conditions are also in opposition to guidelines for treatment set in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Human rights monitors throughout the country increasingly hear about use of torture devices--pepper spray, mace, stun belts, head masks, and even restraint chairs and beds described as having holes for voiding bodily wastes when prisoners are tied down for days. One person reported being strapped down in a restraint chair for 21 days. Women's prisons and juvenile facilities report increasing use of these devices.

Unconscionable conditions exist in the H-Unit at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Maximum Control Complex at Westville, Indiana, Utah State Prison in Draper, the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, and the Maryland House of Corrections Annex. Reports from prisoners in the Q-wing and the Broward Institution for Women in Florida and from Texas, Virgina, Connecticut, and many other states confirm the spread of these inhuman conditions.

Dr. Stuart Grassian, an expert on the results of living in extended isolation, has commented at length on the psychiatric harm that can come to people subjected to long-term isolation. He interviewed people who began to cut themselves just so they can "feel" something and reports panic attacks and a progressive inability to tolerate ordinary stimulation. Isolation has been documented as a cause of paranoia, problems with impulse control, extreme motor restlessness, delusions, suspiciousness, confusion, and depression.

I have treated a number of ex-control unit prisoners who come out with serious symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress.The National Campaign to Stop Control Unit Prisons (NCSCUP) held hearings throughout the country in 1996 and collected shocking testimony from ex-control unit prisoners, current control unit prisoners via audio tape and written testimony, family members, lawyers, activists and advocates. What was described in these testimonies clearly violates the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, another Covenant, which the United States has signed. NSCUP continues to monitor conditions in isolation units throughout the country and has published a 1997 report on the status of control units in the U.S. and The Survival Manual, a pamphlet written by prisoners living in isolation for prisoners living in isolation. NSCUP also continues to provide analysis to the media as well as to lawyers preparing litigation.

Prisons are now one of the largest growth industries in the United States. The use of extended isolation is part of that growth pattern. The Prison Industrial Complex now houses over 1.7 million people in state and federal prisons, (excluding children's facilities, immigration detention centers, and municipal lockups). As a human rights advocate on behalf of prisoners for over 20 years, I find it glaringly clear that, just as slavery had economic and political functions, so do prisons. People who are perceived as economic liabilities have been turned into a major economic asset. The young male of color who is worth less than nothing in this current economy suddenly generates between 30 and 60 thousand dollars a year in the "justice" system. It is not accidental that the technological revolution has been accompanied by the largest explosion of prison building in the history of the world. Control units, supermax prisons, and maxi-maxi prisons are the latest form of this growth.

The politics of the criminal justice system--the politics of the police, the politics of the courts, the politics of the prison, and the politics of the death penalty-is a manifestation of racism and classism.We need to expand popular understanding of what is happening in this country's justice system and make it relevant to the lives of people that we know and touch. We need to put a human face on those people living so alarmingly out of sight of the rest of us. We need to press Congress to exercise its oversight authority over the Bureau of Prisons. We need to press the state criminal justice systems that operate these places to examine the way control units function and study their effects. The folks in prison are mostly the poor and the working class who need jobs and education.

Prison issues are class issues, and until prisoner activists and outside organizers begin a more serious level of opposition, neither prison administrators nor the U.S. government will take our complaints seriously.

Prisons reflect both the structure of society and the struggle against it. The wall of silence built around prisons and prisoners must be broken down. Groups all over the country are working on these issues. They need your help. Please get in touch with one of these organizations:

American Friends Service Committee/National Campaign to Stop Control Unit Prisons (972 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102/(973) 643-3192). The Committee To End the Marion Lockdown (P.O. Box 578172, Chicago, IL 60657). California Prison Focus (2489 Mission #28, San Francisco, CA 94110).--

Bonnie Kerness is Associate Director of the American Friends Service Committee Criminal Justice Program in New Jersey and the National Coordinator of the National Campaign to Stop Control Unit Prisons
.

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...

.

COMPLAINT/ CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE

CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE HAVE STOLEN MORE THAN $100,000 AND MY HOME FROM ME, PARTICIPATED IN FALSE ARRESTS, PHYSICAL ABUSE, CONSPIRACY AND COLLUSION, AND REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO MAKE COMPLAINTS,
ALL TO PROTECT TWO OFFICERS.

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.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE AND WILL BECOME THE BASIS FOR AN INVESTIGATION. FURTHER, I SINCERELY AND TRULY DECLARE AND AFFIRM, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FACTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE COMPLETE, ACCURATE, AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. I also understand that my verbal testimony before a Board of Inquiry shall be given under oath.

Sharon Stephens
DATE: January 23, 2008

.

STATE BAR IGNORES ERRANT LAWYERS

PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE RARELY DISCIPLINED
By Mike Zapler, Mercury News
Article Launched: 02/12/2006 05:31:54 PM PST
Mike Zapler at (408) 920-5505 or mzapler@mercurynews.com.

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.

.