Proof of Sgt. Benitez' violations and the conspiracy to cover up verified by law enforcement's own standards from the "Peace Officers Standards and Training - P.O.S.T.
Jeff Rosen
DA of Santa Clara County
Mr. Rosen,
Based upon California's Peace Officers own guidelines and interpretation of the law Palo Alto police Sgt. Wayne Benitez violated PC 149 and PC 147; PC 149 when Sgt. Benitez struck Gustavo Alvarez and then smashed Alvarez' face into the vehicle and then PC 147 when Sgt. Benitez told Alvarez to, "Shut up," and then mocked Alvarez by stating; "You think you're a tuff guy?," and then threatening Alvarez by stating to Alverez that, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more."
Additionally by telling Alvarez to "shut up," coupled with the use of force and the threat of more force Sgt. Benitez violated Alvarez' 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech.
According to P.O.S.T standards Palo Alto police officer Chris Conde appears to have violated PC 31 or PC 32 and or PC 182 by not reporting the offenses committed by Sgt. Alvarez.
Excerpts of the P.OS.T standards pertinent to the incidents described herein can be viewed here:
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/post-stamdards.html
P.O.S.T standards:
https://post.ca.gov/Download-Student-Workbooks/CAv5POSTACC-Workbooks-1
DA of Santa Clara County
Mr. Rosen,
Based upon California's Peace Officers own guidelines and interpretation of the law Palo Alto police Sgt. Wayne Benitez violated PC 149 and PC 147; PC 149 when Sgt. Benitez struck Gustavo Alvarez and then smashed Alvarez' face into the vehicle and then PC 147 when Sgt. Benitez told Alvarez to, "Shut up," and then mocked Alvarez by stating; "You think you're a tuff guy?," and then threatening Alvarez by stating to Alverez that, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more."
Additionally by telling Alvarez to "shut up," coupled with the use of force and the threat of more force Sgt. Benitez violated Alvarez' 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech.
According to P.O.S.T standards Palo Alto police officer Chris Conde appears to have violated PC 31 or PC 32 and or PC 182 by not reporting the offenses committed by Sgt. Alvarez.
Excerpts of the P.OS.T standards pertinent to the incidents described herein can be viewed here:
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/post-stamdards.html
P.O.S.T standards:
https://post.ca.gov/Download-Student-Workbooks/CAv5POSTACC-Workbooks-1
It is quit clear these officers are violating the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics:
http://libertyless.weebly.com/code-of-conduct.html
In August 2017 I was informed that Palo Alto Police Officers were coercing homeless people to sign a yellow paper and give a thumb print so that other officers would know who the homeless were It would be one thing if the PAPD were demanding this compliance form all citizens including Asst. DA Jay Boyarsky who lives in Palo Alto but to discriminate against a specific economic/housing group hearkens to how the NAZIS targeted specific groups in the 1930s and 40s. I could not confirm the conduct cited above because once it was brought to the attention of the city council on 8/31/2017 the practice came to an abrupt halt. Given the facts listed below it would not surprise me or those of Antelope Valley that
https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/28/37967/doj-deputies-at-la-county-sheriff-s-stations-in-la/
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6-28-13.pdf
Why not just attach a yellow star to all of the homeless in Palo Alto so that it will make it easier? |
So Mr. Rosen it is a slippery slope from the homeless to include all of the groups that Hitler and the Nazis went after before they came after those of Jewish ancestry.
First they came for:
the gypsies, the disabled, the homeless, the mentally ill, the socialists, the unionists, the communists then they came after the Jews yet there was no one left to speak up.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gypsies-1939-1945
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/nazis-holocaust-disabled.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19439830
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/victims-of-the-nazi-era-nazi-racial-ideology
Martin Niemöller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
In November 1939, one year after Kristallnacht, the Nazi government followed the recommendation of leader Reinhard Heydrich and first introduced mandatory ID badges for Jews in Poland. It was announced that "severe punishment is in store for Jews who do not wear the yellow badgeon back and front."
This Nazi policy was one of the tactics used to isolate Jews from the rest of the population and it enabled the Nazi government to identify, concentrate and ultimately murder the Jews of Europe. Helmut Knochen, chief of Security Service & the Security Police in France and Belgium, stated that the yellow badge was "another step on the road to the Final Solution."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/photographs-and-overview-of-jewish-badges-in-the-holocaust
In 2008 Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson encouraged racial profiling to solve a string of robberies. She was publicly rebuked by the City Manager, City Council and numerous state and federal officials. She retired shortly afterward.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/11/20/palo-alto-police-chief-retires-after-firestorm-on-racial-profiling-remarks/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Palo_Altos_Top_Cop_Encourages_Racial_Profiling.html You then have the City Manager James Keene and Asst. City Manager Ed Shikada hire Robert Jonsen as chief through a secret, closed-door process so that no one from the public would be able to criticize the hiring of a person who created and implemented a racially discriminatory policy and practice. |
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/30/robert-jonsen-sworn-in-as-palo-alto-police-chief
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/chief-jonsen.html
Who hired Chief Jonsen, former police chief Dennis Burns who covered up the Albert Hopkins beating and Tony Ciampi tasering:
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins-2.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
Sgt. Benitez' actions did not happen in a vacuum nor did they happen without the collaboration of his fellow officers and the approval of superiors in the department.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/chief-jonsen.html
Who hired Chief Jonsen, former police chief Dennis Burns who covered up the Albert Hopkins beating and Tony Ciampi tasering:
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins-2.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
Sgt. Benitez' actions did not happen in a vacuum nor did they happen without the collaboration of his fellow officers and the approval of superiors in the department.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions-surround-Palo-Alto-police-officers-uSgse-of-force-513069571.html
Sgt. Benitez was the highest ranking officer at the scene and was therefore training his subordinate officers to do exactly the opposite of what the P.O.S.T. training manuals states to do and to violate their oath of office to the Constitution and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Sgt. Benitez would not do this unless he had approval from his own superiors up the chain of command to Chief Robert Jonsen.
Sgt. Benitez was the highest ranking officer at the scene and was therefore training his subordinate officers to do exactly the opposite of what the P.O.S.T. training manuals states to do and to violate their oath of office to the Constitution and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Sgt. Benitez would not do this unless he had approval from his own superiors up the chain of command to Chief Robert Jonsen.
Sgt. Benitez states in the police report that no force was used which is a violation of PC 118.1, (False statement in a police report).
Officer Conde then aids and abets Sgt. Benitiz' false statement by corroborating Sgt. Benitez' false statement that no force was used even though Ofc. Conde witnessed the use of force. This could be construed as a violation of PC 31 and or possibly PC 32. This act of omitting the use of force from the police report reveals Mens Rea, criminal intent, on the part of Ofc. Conde to conceal Sgt. Benitez' crime of using excessive force.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=2.&part=1.&chapter=&article=
The Supervisor signs off on the police report with the false statements
By the time Ofc. Conde testifies and refuses to answer questions regarding the detention and arrest in the court hearing on November 16, 2018 and then dismissal of all charges by the court and your, (the Santa Clara DA's Office), on November 20, 2018 numerous officers in the PAPD chain of command would have become aware of the unethical and what appears to be illegal conduct on the part of their officers yet nothing was done to hold their officers accountable until and only after Alvarez' video was released.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553-Gustavo-Alvarez-Complaint.html
Which means nothing would have been done without Alvarez providing the evidence of the illegal use of force. That conspiracy suggests many officers were involved and Calif. PC 182 states only 2 people need to be involved to be charged with a violation, so at least Conde and Benitez and the third officer who witnessed the use of force.
Who gives Benitez and Conde their marching orders to run roughshod over the Constitution? That would be Police Chief Robert Jonsen.
The use of excessive force by Officer Benitez is a slam dunk, what requires an investigation is how many Palo Alto supervisors in the command staff conspired with Benitez to cover up his actions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuIzpMohyA
You don't believe in conspiracies:
Chicago Police Board fires 4 officers over 'cover up' in the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald
In its ruling, the board concluded the officers violated their "duty by describing the alleged threat posed by Mr. McDonald in an exaggerated way, while omitting relevant facts that support the opposite conclusion. The overall impression based on this selective telling is both misleading and false."
"Indeed, taken on their face, the officers' accounts depict a scene in which Mr. McDonald was the aggressor and Officer Van Dyke the victim—a depiction squarely contradicted by reality. Put simply, the officers wanted to help their fellow officer (Jason Van Dyke) and so described the incident in a way to put him in the best possible light," the board wrote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/us/laquan-mcdonald-chicago-officers-fired/index.html
The verdict brings an end to a corruption scandal that has dogged the largest sheriff’s department in the country and reached the highest levels of the department. Ten other officers, ranging from rank-and-file deputies to Mr. Baca’s second in command, have been convicted or pleaded guilty to interfering in the federal investigation into the jail system. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/lee-baca-los-angeles-county-sheriff-sentenced-prison.html |
Current police chief Robert Jonsen receiving an award from his superior, Sheriff Lee Baca in the Los Angeles Sheriff's department when Jonsen worked for Baca. http://theavtimes.com/2013/02/13/lancaster-welcomes-new-sheriffs-captain/ |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EJHO0LCn9o&t=8s
Sgt Fino is training officer Joy to falsely accuse a citizen of conduct that the citizen was not doing
in order to justify detaining and searching that citizen in violation of the U.S. 4th Amendment.
Sgt. Fino is training Officer Joy to do the exact opposite of what the P.O.S.T, CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING, states to do.
Sgt. Fino is training Officer Joy to violate Ofc. Joy's oath of office and theLaw Enforcement Code of Ethics
Sgt Fino is training officer Joy to falsely accuse a citizen of conduct that the citizen was not doing
in order to justify detaining and searching that citizen in violation of the U.S. 4th Amendment.
Sgt. Fino is training Officer Joy to do the exact opposite of what the P.O.S.T, CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING, states to do.
Sgt. Fino is training Officer Joy to violate Ofc. Joy's oath of office and theLaw Enforcement Code of Ethics
Remember Ofc. Conde refused to answer questions on the witness stand regarding his prosecution of Alvarez because if Ofc. Conde had answered "yes" or "no" he would have been subjected to potentially greater perjury charges.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553-Gustavo-Alvarez-Complaint.html
Will Ofc. Joy be disqualified for violating this policy, of course not, he's being trained to violate the policy by the command staff in the Palo Alto Police Department chief among them is Cpt. Andrew Binder and Chief Robert Jon
Rule of Law breaking anti-American, anti-Constitutional men corrupting a good young man turning him into a lying Rule of Law Breaker like themselves.
That is the saddest thing of all is Ofc. Joy's superiors setting him up to being prosecuted in the future for following their training in violating the Rule of Law, just like what is happening to Sgt. Benitez and Ofc. Conde right now. There was a day when Sgt. Benitez was trained to violate the Constitution and then he is heard passing on that illegal training to his subordinate officers.
I'm not the one who says it, experts from their own law enforcement community say it:
That is the saddest thing of all is Ofc. Joy's superiors setting him up to being prosecuted in the future for following their training in violating the Rule of Law, just like what is happening to Sgt. Benitez and Ofc. Conde right now. There was a day when Sgt. Benitez was trained to violate the Constitution and then he is heard passing on that illegal training to his subordinate officers.
I'm not the one who says it, experts from their own law enforcement community say it:
1. The police Code of Silence exists.
2. Some form of a Code of Silence will develop among officers in virtually any agency.
3. The American criminal justice system and in particular law enforcement, has been negligent by not attempting to resolve the negative impact the code.
4. The Code of Silence breeds, supports and nourishes other forms of unethical actions.
5. Because the code is an essentially natural occurrence, attempts to stop it all together will be futile.
6. The Code of Silence in law enforcement is more dominant and influential than most other vocations or professions.
9. Whistle-blowers are generally not supported by the administration of law enforcement agencies.
11. The Code of Silence among administrators, although better camouflaged and less well known, is more destructive than when non-ranking personnel do the same thing.
15. The Code of Silence typically conceals serious law enforcement misconduct for years before the corruption is revealed.
16. Some officers who participate in the Code of Silence rationalize their behavior by convincing themselves that what they are doing is not actually hurting anyone, while others intentionally replace the facts with a self-serving version because it is emotionally painful to admit the truth.
17. The majority of officers who have been in law enforcement for several years have directly participated in the Code of Silence.
18. The Code of Silence is prompted by excessive use of force incidents more than for any other specific circumstance.
19. People outside police organizations reveal the misconduct within an agency more often than it is divulged from employees.
20. The Code of Silence usually occurs within cultures created by the role-modeling of leaders.
21. The “Us versus them” mentality is usually present within the minds of those who participate in the Code of Silence.
24. When desired values are not sincerely embraced and role modeled by the leaders within an organization, the Code of Silence is more likely to occur.
26. A culture which acts as fertile ground for the destructive features of the Code of Silence to grow is one that promotes loyalty to people over integrity.
27. Field training officers have the ability to alter the Code of Silence in a positive fashion, if their commitment to do so is obtained.
28. Many police officers feel a great sense of alienation. This often acts as a catalyst for officers to rationalize that taking part in the Code of Silence is not particularly wrong.
31. Leaders themselves lie at the core of both the cause and solution to corruption and the Code of Silence.
32. The “rotten apple” theory that some administrators propose as the cause of their downfall has frequently been nothing more than a self-serving, superficial façade, intended to draw attention away from their own failures.
33. Historically, administrators have not had the courage to acknowledge they have integrity needs.
34. An administrative indifference toward the Code of Silence exists.
38. Hypocrisy and fear often dominate the culture of a law enforcement agency that has a substantial negative Code of Silence.
40. At its worse, a destructive Code of Silence is both condoned and privately encouraged by supervisors and administrators.
43. The continual lack of accountability is very destructive to the culture of a police organization.
44. Some police agencies have shown they are incapable of policing themselves.
45. Supervisors should be held accountable for role modeling behavior that could encourage officers to take part in the Code of Silence.
47. A culture must be established in which an allegiance to principles is a higher priority than loyalty to people.
51. Every law enforcement agency throughout the nation should have a written policy that provides protections for whistle-blowers.
52. All law enforcement agencies should have written policies that mandate all employees immediately inform on any other employee who has committed any criminal offense.
53. Confidentiality must be ensured for any officer who supplies information about the serious misconduct and desires confidentiality.
54. Officers should be fired for not reporting officers who commit criminal acts.
Complete list and other facts:
https://www.aele.org/loscode2000.html
2. Some form of a Code of Silence will develop among officers in virtually any agency.
3. The American criminal justice system and in particular law enforcement, has been negligent by not attempting to resolve the negative impact the code.
4. The Code of Silence breeds, supports and nourishes other forms of unethical actions.
5. Because the code is an essentially natural occurrence, attempts to stop it all together will be futile.
6. The Code of Silence in law enforcement is more dominant and influential than most other vocations or professions.
9. Whistle-blowers are generally not supported by the administration of law enforcement agencies.
11. The Code of Silence among administrators, although better camouflaged and less well known, is more destructive than when non-ranking personnel do the same thing.
15. The Code of Silence typically conceals serious law enforcement misconduct for years before the corruption is revealed.
16. Some officers who participate in the Code of Silence rationalize their behavior by convincing themselves that what they are doing is not actually hurting anyone, while others intentionally replace the facts with a self-serving version because it is emotionally painful to admit the truth.
17. The majority of officers who have been in law enforcement for several years have directly participated in the Code of Silence.
18. The Code of Silence is prompted by excessive use of force incidents more than for any other specific circumstance.
19. People outside police organizations reveal the misconduct within an agency more often than it is divulged from employees.
20. The Code of Silence usually occurs within cultures created by the role-modeling of leaders.
21. The “Us versus them” mentality is usually present within the minds of those who participate in the Code of Silence.
24. When desired values are not sincerely embraced and role modeled by the leaders within an organization, the Code of Silence is more likely to occur.
26. A culture which acts as fertile ground for the destructive features of the Code of Silence to grow is one that promotes loyalty to people over integrity.
27. Field training officers have the ability to alter the Code of Silence in a positive fashion, if their commitment to do so is obtained.
28. Many police officers feel a great sense of alienation. This often acts as a catalyst for officers to rationalize that taking part in the Code of Silence is not particularly wrong.
31. Leaders themselves lie at the core of both the cause and solution to corruption and the Code of Silence.
32. The “rotten apple” theory that some administrators propose as the cause of their downfall has frequently been nothing more than a self-serving, superficial façade, intended to draw attention away from their own failures.
33. Historically, administrators have not had the courage to acknowledge they have integrity needs.
34. An administrative indifference toward the Code of Silence exists.
38. Hypocrisy and fear often dominate the culture of a law enforcement agency that has a substantial negative Code of Silence.
40. At its worse, a destructive Code of Silence is both condoned and privately encouraged by supervisors and administrators.
43. The continual lack of accountability is very destructive to the culture of a police organization.
44. Some police agencies have shown they are incapable of policing themselves.
45. Supervisors should be held accountable for role modeling behavior that could encourage officers to take part in the Code of Silence.
47. A culture must be established in which an allegiance to principles is a higher priority than loyalty to people.
51. Every law enforcement agency throughout the nation should have a written policy that provides protections for whistle-blowers.
52. All law enforcement agencies should have written policies that mandate all employees immediately inform on any other employee who has committed any criminal offense.
53. Confidentiality must be ensured for any officer who supplies information about the serious misconduct and desires confidentiality.
54. Officers should be fired for not reporting officers who commit criminal acts.
Complete list and other facts:
https://www.aele.org/loscode2000.html
PC 182
182.
(a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.
(2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.
(3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.
(5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=8.&article=
PC 118.1
118.1. Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person.
(Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 427, Sec. 124. Effective January 1, 1993.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=118.1.
TITLE 2. OF PARTIES TO CRIME [30 - 33]
( Title 2 enacted 1872. )
30.
The parties to crimes are classified as:
1. Principals; and,
2. Accessories.
(Enacted 1872.)
31.
All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 31, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2008.)
32.
Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony.
(Amended by Stats. 1935, Ch. 436.)
33.
Based upon California's Peace Officers own guidelines and interpretation of the law Palo Alto police Sgt. Wayne Benitez violated PC 149 and PC 147; PC 149 when Sgt. Benitez struck Gustavo Alvarez and then smashed Alvarez' face into the vehicle and then PC 147 when Sgt. Benitez told Alvarez to, "Shut up," and then mocked Alvarez by stating; "You think you're a tuff guy?," and then threatening Alvarez by stating to Alverez that, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more."
Additionally by telling Alvarez to "shut up," coupled with the use of force and the threat of more force Sgt. Benitez violated Alvarez' 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech.
Additionally by telling Alvarez to "shut up," coupled with the use of force and the threat of more force Sgt. Benitez violated Alvarez' 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech.
According to P.O.S.T standards Palo Alto police officer Chris Conde appears to have violated PC 31 or PC 32 and or PC 182 by not reporting the offenses committed by Sgt. Alvarez.
Excerpts of P.O.S.T. standards pertinent to the incident:
cc
Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen proves that all citizens are NOT equal under the Law and that some people are above the Rule of Law based upon the subjective dictates of Jeff Rosen's bias and prejudice.
|
A case study as to why the Constitution is powerless in protecting the People
and how the Rule of Law is nothing more than a false promise used to deceive the People into wrongly believing that there is equality and liberty for all. |
PROOF ONE:
Palo Alto Police Sgt. Wayne Benitez is seen in a video striking a hand-cuffed detainee, Gustavo Alvarez, and then slamming Alvarez face first into the windshield of a vehicle.
That is a clear violation of PC 149 yet DA Jeff Rosen refuses to prosecute Sgt. Benitez for violating California law. Now Jeff Rosen did prosecute three Santa Clara County Sheriff’s deputies for unlawfully beating an inmate that resulted in that inmates death so one would have to conclude that DA Rosen is basing his decision not on the law and the facts but on the severity of the injuries sustained by the victims. Had Benitez’ use of force resulted in a cracked skull that caused a brain hemorrhage resulting in Alvarez dying DA Rosen would no doubt be prosecuting Benitez for assaulting and beating Alvarez. But because Alvarez only sustained a minor injury Rosen has decided that the punishment associated to prosecuting and convicting Benitez would be excessive based not on the law enacted by the People’s representatives, but by Jeff Rosen’s personal dictates revealing that Jeff Rosen is not subject to the Rule of Law but a dictator of the Law. |
During a press conference after the verdict, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said justice has been delivered.
"We cannot and did not turn away from the tragedy of Michael Tyree," he said. "We will never forget Michael Tyree in our fight for those who see vulnerabilities as an opportunity to harm rather than help." http://www.ktvu.com/news/ktvu-local-news/santa-clara-county-deputies-found-guilty-of-inmates-death .
Gustavo Alvarez is not resisting or fleeing and is hand cuffed completely vulnerable to the control of Sgt. Benitez when Benitez beats him.
|
Read Full Police Report Here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209552-Alvarez-Police-Report.html
|
Sgt Benitez then threatens to cause more physical harm to Alvarez after already having done so, a possible violation of PC422. |
PROOF TWO:
The officer, Christopher Conde, who initially contacted and detained Alvarez knowingly made a false statement in the police report.
Why has Jeff Rosen's office not filed charges against Ofc. Conde for violating PC 118.1 and or PC 118 and PC 134?
After viewing the video and reading the police report and the civil complaint the following can be concluded based upon that information:
Why has Jeff Rosen's office not filed charges against Ofc. Conde for violating PC 118.1 and or PC 118 and PC 134?
After viewing the video and reading the police report and the civil complaint the following can be concluded based upon that information:
Fact 1: The officer is seen and heard in a video at the incident verbally acknowledging that he did not see the suspect driving the vehicle.
Fact 2: At a later time the officer falsely states under penalty of perjury in the police report that he viewed the suspect driving the vehicle. PC 118.1 and PC 118
Fact 3: The officer submitted the written report to the District Attorney's, Jeff Rosen's, office with the intent to have criminal charges filed against the suspect pivotally based upon the false statement in the police report. PC 134
Fact 4: During a court hearing officer Conde refused to answer the question as to whether he had seen the suspect driving the vehicle corroborating the PC 118.1 & PC 118 violations.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions-surround-Palo-Alto-police-officers-use-of-force-513069571.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209552-Alvarez-Police-Report.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553-Gustavo-Alvarez-Complaint.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209552-Alvarez-Police-Report.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553-Gustavo-Alvarez-Complaint.html
Jeff Rosen Santa Clara District Attorney
The arresting Palo Alto police officer, Christopher Conde, knowingly and deliberately made a false statement under penalty of perjury in his police report which was the pivotal fact, (falsified fact), justifying the detainment and arrest. The is a violation of PC 118.1 and probably a violation of PC 118 and 134. The short inquiry and conclusion is if you do not hold Officer Conde accountable than you will be declaring that police officers are above the law; you will be declaring that the United States is not a nation governed by the Rule of Law but by the arbitrary and subjective dictates of citizens who have been entrusted to uphold the Rule of Law in all instances. Example of the double standard failure: If a person is lawfully detained by a police officer like ofc. Conde and that person provides Ofc. Conde with a false name in order to evade proper identification that person is guilty of PC 148.9 and Ofc. Conde would arrest that person and you would prosecute that person for that crime. If while off-duty Ofc. Conde becomes that subject of another officer's investigation of a crime and Ofc. Conde provides that officer with a false name in order to evade proper identification Ofc. Conde would be guilty of committing the same offense as the person whom he arrested and you prosecuted. What message are you sending to the public if you do not prosecute Ofc. Conde for violating the law in the exact same manner as the private citizen whom you would prosecute? What is your justification for not prosecuting the officer? What is your motive, your bias and prejudice for not prosecuting the officer for violating the exact same law that you prosecuted the private citizen for? Facts of the Case: The judge in Alvarez’s case dismissed all charges against him because the arresting officer, Christopher Conde, did not possess the reasonable suspicion standard to detain Alvarez nor the probable cause standard to arrest Alvarez. On November 16, 2018 during a Court Hearing in California Superior Court heard by Judge Jerome Nadler Ofc. Conde refused to answer repeated questions as to whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle. This act by Ofc. Conde in refusing answer the question is obstruction of justice just as if the President were giving sworn testimony and refused to answer an incriminating question. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553-Gustavo-Alvarez-Complaint.html This refusal to answer the question corroborates the false statement in the police report made under penalty of perjury and appears to substantiate raises a violation of PC 118 based upon the direct evidence. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=5.&article= Ofc. Conde’s obstruction of justice act and false representation made in court on November 16,2018 under penalty of perjury to conceal the false statement in his police report extends the statute of limitations to November 16, 2018. The false statement made by Ofc. Conde was placed in an instrument in writing and submitted to the District Attorney’s Office with the intent to deceive the District Attorney’s office into believing the statement and fact as true knowing that it was false for a fraudulent purpose to wrongly and maliciously prosecute Alvarez suggests that Ofc. Conde violated PC 134 as well. Motive: The reason why Ofc. Conde made the false statement in his police report is because he does not believe the law applies to him while he is doing his job enforcing the law as a public servant. Ofc. Conde believes he is above the law and therefore renders the Rule of Law null and void. Freedom and the Rule of Law: The only pillar that separates a free and just society from all others is the preeminence of the Rule of Law. From both ends of the political spectrum people are outraged at high ranking government officials who flaunt the Rule of Law exercising their power in an abusive way declaring themselves above the law. Republicans say the Clintons have acted above the law and Democrats have declared that Trump has acted above the law. This concept of “the law does not apply to me because I’m doing the work of the people” first arises when the recent converts have previously viewed other public servants abuse their power in this manner for years. “If it is okay for them to do it than it is okay for me to do it,” they say. This moral and legal turpitude is justified by the blatant defiance of prosecutors to equally and always subject every citizen to the Rule of Law. If the citizens believe in, and our nation upholds the Rule of Law, than no one; not the president, not the former president, not the street sweeper and nor are police officers above the Rule of Law. Convicting the Innocent: The greater problem with Ofc. Conde’s conduct is not that he violated the law but that he accused a citizen of a crime based upon an unsubstantiated assumption. This is how innocent people end up in prison for crimes they did not commit. No doubt that there is a 99 percent chance that Alvarez was driving the vehicle the night Ofc. Conde arrested him, however Ofc. Conde DID NOT KNOW if Alvarez was actually driving the vehicle. 99 times out of a hundred situations in which Ofc. Conde applies the same UnConstitutional tactic he will be correct in his assumption and no harm will occur, however there will be a day in which Ofc. Conde will become so desensitized and callused to the facts of a situation and his practice of using illegal detainment and arrest will result in capturing and imprisoning an innocent person; that 1 out of 100. That is why we have these laws about false statements and the Constitution to ensure that innocent people are not wrongfully or maliciously prosecuted and imprisoned. Innocent people do not go to jail by accident. Though those who have spent decades behind bars for the serious crimes they did not commit garner the headlines tens of thousands more go unreported due to minor nature of the offenses. Here is my example: When I was in college I would play pick-up basketball at a local park on Saturday afternoons that attracted dozens of players from all back grounds. Lounging around periphery of the court would be a handful of onlookers who would enjoy some cold beer on a hot day. After I completed a game I took a seat in the shade next to the trunk of a tree. Unbeknownst to me, next to the tree was an open can of beer which had been placed there by one of the spectators. The next thing I know a cop on a bicycle rides up to me and accuses me of drinking beer in public in violation of a local muni-code. Shocked at the sight of the beer I responded that it was not mine and that I just sat down from playing basketball, sweat still pouring from my body. The officer did not care, I was in close proximity of contraband and no one else was so therefore the beer was mine according to his logic. He wrote me a citation which forced me to take time out my day to go to court and pay the fine. Too naïve at the time I did not contest the citation believing I could not win in court as the court takes a cop’s word over that of a citizen. Thus, I was convicted of a crime I did not commit and after the cop rode off that day the true perpetrator who was sitting 30 feet away from his beer laughed at me. Prosecutor's Message to the People: If you do not prosecute Officer Conde for committing perjury and making false statements than you will be telling the People of California that police officers are above the law. You will telling the people of California that you do not believe in nor uphold the Rule of Law. Perhaps you do not want to hold Ofc.Conde accountable because you don’t believe that the punishment fits the crime; that the consequences are too harsh. If that’s your reason than you have elevated yourself above the Rule of Law that you yourself are to be subject to just like all other citizens. It’s not for you do arbitrarily and subjectively apply the law based upon your own dictates; if you do not like a law or the punishment attached to a law than you should work with your legislators to change the law and the punishment of the law. You should contact State Senator Jim Beal and have him put forth legislation that would allow police officers to make false statements in reports and in court both under penalty of perjury with no punishment or consequences for doing so. The false statements and perjury could still be used to suppress evidence and have cases dismissed but there would no longer exist any penalty for using false statements or evidence. Sounds crazy and un-American on its face doesn’t it? Well that is the way the justice system currently operates proof by your decision not to prosecute Ofc.Conde. So if the use of false statements and perjury and false evidence is the norm why not decriminalize it though new legislation and be open and honest about how the justice system currently operates. At least doing so would preserve the Rule of Law. If the former is not the reason for enforcing the law upon Ofc. Conde than perhaps you believe that Ofc. Conde’s career should not be destroyed over a trivial offense committed against an inferior human being whose previously violated the law; a “low-life” as Ofc. Benetiz put it. If that is the case than your allowing your personal bias and prejudice to affect your decision once again stopping upon the Rule of Law underneath your own dictates. A police officer should not be subject to the Rule of Law when doing so would make an inferior citizen equal with a police officer before the law. All citizens are not always equal before the law. If that is the case than you’re allowing your own bigotry to decide what the law is. That’s the problem with most police officers, they compare the perpetrator/criminal to themselves and other citizens allowing that comparison to affect their judgment and decisions on how they will enforce the law and whether or not they will uphold the Constitutional rights of those whom they have deemed inferior human beings. Rather than comparing citizen to police officer and citizen to citizen police officers should compare all citizens, including the criminals to the Constitution, to the laws. Simultaneously police officers should compare themselves and their actions to the Constitution and the law and not that of the criminal whom they are seeking to arrest. Should an officer view his actions as affecting the Constitution, American freedom and all other citizens than officers will have greater reason not to violate the Constitution and the law. Contrary to many experts, you cannot train bias or prejudice or bigotry out of police officers any more than you can train those traits out of any other citizen and ultimately there must always exist a painful deterrent to violating the Constitution for without there is no compunction remaining that would deter the unscrupulous police officer. If the above justifications do not represent the reason why you refuse to hold Ofc. Conde accountable perhaps it’s because you know that Ofc. Conde is a new cop and has been trained by his superiors on how to make false statements and representations in police reports and in court and therefore it would be unfair to hold Ofc. Conde accountable while not holding his superiors accountable for the more egregious offense of training Ofc. Conde on how to violate the law. Pursuant to the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training,(POST), Ofc.Conde has a duty to report any unethical or illegal acts or training being perpetrated by members of his department. Thus, Ofc.Conde has no excuse. Should Ofc.Conde reveal any illegal training by his superiors during his own proceedings who could seek leniency from the court. You have to start with someone, with one cop, if you keep kicking the can down the road than there is no deterrent in police departments that would force a change in training tactics by supervisors. This lack of deterrent results in the unlawful practices to be passed on indefinitely solidifying the destruction of the Rule of Law. Public Servants Not: Ofc. Conde is promoted as a “public servant.” A servant is someone who does the biding of others. Ofc. Conde, like all police officers, is an employee of the People. During the November 16, 2018 hearing to suppress evidence that was to decide whether Ofc. Conde’s detention of Alvarez was Constitutional or not Ofc. Conde refused to answer a question submitted to him by members of the public, The People, regarding the main subject of the hearing, that being whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle or not. Ofc. Conde had stated in writing in his police report under penalty of perjury that he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle and now in court on the witness stand Ofc. Conde refused to answer the question as to whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle. Forget the court and the laws, Ofc. Conde was deliberately disobeying his employer by not providing information to his employer that his employer was entitled to have; the subject of that information being the performance of his duties of what he was doing on the job while working for his employer, the People. Ofc.Conde is paid to give testimony in court by the People yet refused to provide testimony demanded by the People about work he had previously done for the People. In any other business Ofc. Conde would be summarily terminated from his employment. Only a public servant, a police officer, can get away with refusing to fulfill his job description thumbing his nose at his employer and not only remain on the job but without any disciple as well. The complicity of the court is revealed by the court refusing to order Ofc. Conde to answer the question or face contempt of court charges. |
The complicity of the court is revealed by the court refusing to order Ofc. Conde to answer the question or face contempt of court charges.
Controlling the Cops; Accomplices To Perjury By Alan M. Dershowitz Published: May 02, 1994 The New York Times For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. "Testilying" -- as the police call it -- has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges. Irving Younger, a onetime New York City Criminal Court judge, described police testimony in search and seizure cases this way: "When one . . . looks at a series of cases, [ it ] then becomes apparent that policemen are committing perjury at least in some of them, and perhaps in nearly all of them." Without the complicity of judges, police perjury would be reduced considerably. Officers know that in many courtrooms they can get away with the most blatant perjury without judicial rebuke or prosecution. I have seen trial judges pretend to believe officers whose testimony is contradicted by common sense, documentary evidence and even unambiguous tape recordings. And I have seen appellate judges close their eyes to such patently false findings of fact. Judicial acceptance of obviously false testimony sends a subtle yet powerful message of approval, if not encouragement, to perjurers. Many trial judges were prosecutors, and they know perjury when they hear it -- and they hear it often enough to be able to do something about it. Yet many tolerate it because they think most victims of police perjury are guilty of the crimes for which they stand charged. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/02/opinion/controlling-the-cops-accomplices-to-perjury.html Integrity : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility She had the integrity to refuse to compromise on matters of principle. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that integrity regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 28. (a) (2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance. California's victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity. (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b). (4) The rights of victims also include broader shared collective rights that are held in common with all of the People of the State of California and that are enforceable through the enactment of laws and through good-faith efforts and actions of California's elected, appointed, and publicly employed officials. These rights encompass the expectation shared with all of the people of California that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be appropriately and thoroughly investigated, appropriately detained in custody, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 |
PC 118.1 Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person.
(Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 427, Sec. 124. Effective January 1, 1993.)
118 (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 950, Sec. 2.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=5.&article
PC 134 Every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony.
(Enacted 1872.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=6.&article=
PC149 Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 263. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=7.&article=
ARTICLE 1. Initial Sentencing [1170 - 1170.95]
1170 (h) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a felony punishable pursuant to this subdivision where the term is not specified in the underlying offense shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=2.&chapter=4.5.&article=1.
PC 422 (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=11.5.&part=1.&chapter=&article=
(Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 427, Sec. 124. Effective January 1, 1993.)
118 (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 950, Sec. 2.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=5.&article
PC 134 Every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony.
(Enacted 1872.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=6.&article=
PC149 Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 263. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=7.&article=
ARTICLE 1. Initial Sentencing [1170 - 1170.95]
1170 (h) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a felony punishable pursuant to this subdivision where the term is not specified in the underlying offense shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=2.&chapter=4.5.&article=1.
PC 422 (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=11.5.&part=1.&chapter=&article=
Integrity
: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility She had the integrity to refuse to compromise on matters of principle. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that integrity regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 28. (a) (2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance. California's victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity. (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b). (4) The rights of victims also include broader shared collective rights that are held in common with all of the People of the State of California and that are enforceable through the enactment of laws and through good-faith efforts and actions of California's elected, appointed, and publicly employed officials. These rights encompass the expectation shared with all of the people of California that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be appropriately and thoroughly investigated, appropriately detained in custody, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 |
|