Paradise Unified School District, Administrators, Teachers and Staff

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 07/04/2013

Posted Protect My Sons as no one gets whats truly going on.  

Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
Related: Arson / Arson
======================================================================

On May 24th 2011 after several years of not being able to reach my sons, with endless fruitless calls to the Paradise High School Administrators I went directly to Mr. Marcus who at the beginning was cooperative.  The reason for my visit was the nightmare around events involving indictments involving persons, police officers and attorneys connected to various US Grand Jury Indictments in Contra Costa County, State of California and Nevada.  





Share:

PENAL CODE SECTION 277-280 Interference of a court order

Custody and Visitation

PENAL CODE SECTION 277-280

PENAL CODE SECTION 277-280 


277.  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this
chapter:
   (a) "Child" means a person under the age of 18 years.
   (b) "Court order" or "custody order" means a custody determination
decree, judgment, or order issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction, whether permanent or temporary, initial or modified,
that affects the custody or visitation of a child, issued in the
context of a custody proceeding. An order, once made, shall continue
in effect until it expires, is modified, is rescinded, or terminates
by operation of law.
   (c) "Custody proceeding" means a proceeding in which a custody
determination is an issue, including, but not limited to, an action
for dissolution or separation, dependency, guardianship, termination
of parental rights, adoption, paternity, except actions under Section
11350 or 11350.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or protection
from domestic violence proceedings, including an emergency
protective order pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of
Division 10 of the Family Code.
   (d) "Lawful custodian" means a person, guardian, or public agency
having a right to custody of a child.
   (e) A "right to custody" means the right to the physical care,
custody, and control of a child pursuant to a custody order as
defined in subdivision (b) or, in the absence of a court order, by
operation of law, or pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act contained
in Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family
Code. Whenever a public agency takes protective custody or
jurisdiction of the care, custody, control, or conduct of a child by
statutory authority or court order, that agency is a lawful custodian
of the child and has a right to physical custody of the child. In
any subsequent placement of the child, the public agency continues to
be a lawful custodian with a right to physical custody of the child
until the public agency's right of custody is terminated by an order
of a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law.
   (f) In the absence of a court order to the contrary, a parent
loses his or her right to custody of the child to the other parent if
the parent having the right to custody is dead, is unable or refuses
to take the custody, or has abandoned his or her family. A natural
parent whose parental rights have been terminated by court order is
no longer a lawful custodian and no longer has a right to physical
custody.
   (g) "Keeps" or "withholds" means retains physical possession of a
child whether or not the child resists or objects.
   (h) "Visitation" means the time for access to the child allotted
to any person by court order.
   (i) "Person" includes, but is not limited to, a parent or an agent
of a parent.
   (j) "Domestic violence" means domestic violence as defined in
Section 6211 of the Family Code.
   (k) "Abduct" means take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal.




278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously
takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the
intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that
fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h)
of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.



278.5.  (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,
or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a
right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of
Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and
imprisonment.
   (b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt
power.
   (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.




278.6.  (a) At the sentencing hearing following a conviction for a
violation of Section 278 or 278.5, or both, the court shall consider
any relevant factors and circumstances in aggravation, including, but
not limited to, all of the following:
   (1) The child was exposed to a substantial risk of physical injury
or illness.
   (2) The defendant inflicted or threatened to inflict physical harm
on a parent or lawful custodian of the child or on the child at the
time of or during the abduction.
   (3) The defendant harmed or abandoned the child during the
abduction.
   (4) The child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or
concealed outside the United States.
   (5) The child has not been returned to the lawful custodian.
   (6) The defendant previously abducted or threatened to abduct the
child.
   (7) The defendant substantially altered the appearance or the name
of the child.
   (8) The defendant denied the child appropriate education during
the abduction.
   (9) The length of the abduction.
   (10) The age of the child.
   (b) At the sentencing hearing following a conviction for a
violation of Section 278 or 278.5, or both, the court shall consider
any relevant factors and circumstances in mitigation, including, but
not limited to, both of the following:
   (1) The defendant returned the child unharmed and prior to arrest
or issuance of a warrant for arrest, whichever is first.
   (2) The defendant provided information and assistance leading to
the child's safe return.
   (c) In addition to any other penalties provided for a violation of
Section 278 or 278.5, a court shall order the defendant to pay
restitution to the district attorney for any costs incurred in
locating and returning the child as provided in Section 3134 of the
Family Code, and to the victim for those expenses and costs
reasonably incurred by, or on behalf of, the victim in locating and
recovering the child. An award made pursuant to this section shall
constitute a final judgment and shall be enforceable as such.




278.7.  (a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to
custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that
the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate
bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps,
withholds, or conceals that child.
   (b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to
custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who,
with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with
the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional
harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
"Emotional harm" includes having a parent who has committed domestic
violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping,
withholding, or concealing the child.
   (c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or
conceals a child shall do all of the following:
   (1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of
the district attorney of the county where the child resided before
the action. The report shall include the name of the person, the
current address and telephone number of the child and the person, and
the reasons the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or
concealed.
   (2) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing, commence a custody proceeding in
a court of competent jurisdiction consistent with the federal
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (Section 1738A, Title 28, United
States Code) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code).
   (3) Inform the district attorney's office of any change of address
or telephone number of the person and the child.
   (d) For the purposes of this article, a reasonable time within
which to make a report to the district attorney's office is at least
10 days and a reasonable time to commence a custody proceeding is at
least 30 days. This section shall not preclude a person from making a
report to the district attorney's office or commencing a custody
proceeding earlier than those specified times.
   (e) The address and telephone number of the person and the child
provided pursuant to this section shall remain confidential unless
released pursuant to state law or by a court order that contains
appropriate safeguards to ensure the safety of the person and the
child.



279.  A violation of Section 278 or 278.5 by a person who was not a
resident of, or present in, this state at the time of the alleged
offense is punishable in this state, whether the intent to commit the
offense is formed within or outside of this state, if any of the
following apply:
   (a) The child was a resident of, or present in, this state at the
time the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed.
   (b) The child thereafter is found in this state.
   (c) A lawful custodian or a person with a right to visitation is a
resident of this state at the time the child was taken, enticed
away, kept, withheld, or concealed.



279.1.  The offenses enumerated in Sections 278 and 278.5 are
continuous in nature, and continue for as long as the minor child is
concealed or detained.


279.5.  When a person is arrested for an alleged violation of
Section 278 or 278.5, the court, in setting bail, shall take into
consideration whether the child has been returned to the lawful
custodian, and if not, shall consider whether there is an increased
risk that the child may not be returned, or the defendant may flee
the jurisdiction, or, by flight or concealment, evade the authority
of the court.



279.6.  (a) A law enforcement officer may take a child into
protective custody under any of the following circumstances:
   (1) It reasonably appears to the officer that a person is likely
to conceal the child, flee the jurisdiction with the child, or, by
flight or concealment, evade the authority of the court.
   (2) There is no lawful custodian available to take custody of the
child.
   (3) There are conflicting custody orders or conflicting claims to
custody and the parties cannot agree which party should take custody
of the child.
   (4) The child is an abducted child.
   (b) When a law enforcement officer takes a child into protective
custody pursuant to this section, the officer shall do one of the
following:
   (1) Release the child to the lawful custodian of the child, unless
it reasonably appears that the release would cause the child to be
endangered, abducted, or removed from the jurisdiction.
   (2) Obtain an emergency protective order pursuant to Part 3
(commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code
ordering placement of the child with an interim custodian who agrees
in writing to accept interim custody.
   (3) Release the child to the social services agency responsible
for arranging shelter or foster care.
   (4) Return the child as ordered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
   (c) Upon the arrest of a person for a violation of Section 278 or
278.5, a law enforcement officer shall take possession of an abducted
child who is found in the company of, or under the control of, the
arrested person and deliver the child as directed in subdivision (b).
   (d) Notwithstanding any other law, when a person is arrested for
an alleged violation of Section 278 or 278.5, the court shall, at the
time of the arraignment or thereafter, order that the child shall be
returned to the lawful custodian by or on a specific date, or that
the person show cause on that date why the child has not been
returned as ordered. If conflicting custodial orders exist within
this state, or between this state and a foreign state, the court
shall set a hearing within five court days to determine which court
has jurisdiction under the laws of this state and determine which
state has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a custodial order
under the laws of this state, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the
Family Code), or federal law, if applicable. At the conclusion of the
hearing, or if the child has not been returned as ordered by the
court at the time of arraignment, the court shall enter an order as
to which custody order is valid and is to be enforced. If the child
has not been returned at the conclusion of the hearing, the court
shall set a date within a reasonable time by which the child shall be
returned to the lawful custodian, and order the defendant to comply
by this date, or to show cause on that date why he or she has not
returned the child as directed. The court shall only enforce its
order, or any subsequent orders for the return of the child, under
subdivision (a) of Section 1219 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to
ensure that the child is promptly placed with the lawful custodian.
An order adverse to either the prosecution or defense is reviewable
by a writ of mandate or prohibition addressed to the appropriate
court.


280.  Every person who willfully causes or permits the removal or
concealment of any child in violation of Section 8713, 8803, or 8910
of the Family Code shall be punished as follows:
   (a) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if
the child is concealed within the county in which the adoption
proceeding is pending or in which the child has been placed for
adoption, or is removed from that county to a place within this
state.
   (b) By imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170,
or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, if
the child is removed from that county to a place outside of this
state.

 

Action Action

Share:

§ 5-26-502 - Interference with court-ordered custody

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/13/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons

Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
Related: Arson / Arson
======================================================================

§ 5-26-502 - Interference with court-ordered custody.

    5-26-502. Interference with court-ordered custody.

    (a) A person commits the offense of interference with court-ordered custody if the person:

    (1) Knowing that he or she has no lawful right to do so, takes, entices, or keeps any minor from any person entitled by a court decree or order to the right of custody of the minor;

    (2) Without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another person to take or entice, any minor or any incompetent person from the custody of:

    (A) The parent of the minor or incompetent person;

    (B) The guardian of the minor or incompetent person;

    (C) A public agency having lawful charge of the minor or incompetent person;

    (D) Any other lawful custodian; or

    (E) A person described in subdivisions (a)(2)(A), (B), or (D) of this section while the custodian and minor are being housed at a shelter as defined in 9-4-102;

    (3) (A) Has been awarded custody or granted an adoption or guardianship of a juvenile pursuant to or arising out of a dependency-neglect action pursuant to the Arkansas Juvenile Code of 1989, 9-27-301 et seq., and subsequently places the juvenile in the care or supervision of any person:

    (i) From whom the juvenile was removed; or

    (ii) The court has specifically ordered not to have care, supervision, or custody of the juvenile.

    (B) Subdivision (a)(3)(A) of this section shall not be construed to prohibit a placement described in subdivision (a)(3)(A) of this section if the person who has been granted custody, adoption, or guardianship obtains a court order to that effect from the juvenile division of circuit court that made the award of custody, adoption, or guardianship; or

    (4) Accepts or acquiesces in taking physical custody for any length of time of a juvenile who was removed from the person or if the court has specifically ordered that the person not have care, supervision, or custody of the juvenile pursuant to or arising out of a dependency-neglect action pursuant to the Arkansas Juvenile Code of 1989, 9-27-301 et seq.

    (b) (1) (A) Interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(1) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

    (B) However, interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(1) of this section is a Class D felony if the minor is:

    (i) Taken, enticed, or kept outside the State of Arkansas; or

    (ii) Taken from any person entitled by a court decree or order to the right of custody of the minor while the custodian and minor are being housed at a shelter as defined in 9-4-102, even if the minor is not taken outside the State of Arkansas.

    (2) Interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(2) of this section is a Class C felony.

    (3) (A) Interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(3) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

    (B) However, any subsequent offense of interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(3) of this section shall constitute a Class C felony.

    (4) (A) Interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(4) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

    (B) However, any subsequent offense of interference with court-ordered custody under subdivision (a)(4) of this section shall constitute a Class C felony.

    (c) (1) In every case prior to serving a warrant for arrest on a person charged with the offense of interference with court-ordered custody, the police officer or other law enforcement officer shall inform the Department of Health and Human Services of the circumstances of any minor named in the information or indictment as having been taken, enticed, or kept from the custodian in a manner constituting interference with court-ordered custody or placed with a person prohibited under subdivision (a)(3) of this section.

    (2) A representative of the department shall be present with the arresting police officer or law enforcement officer to take the minor into temporary custody of the department pending further proceedings by a court of competent jurisdiction.

    (d) (1) A court of competent jurisdiction shall determine the immediate custodial placement of any minor pursuant to a petition brought by the department or an agency of the department to determine if there is probable cause to believe the minor may be:

    (A) Removed from the jurisdiction of the court;

    (B) Abandoned; or

    (C) Outside the immediate care or supervision of a person lawfully entitled to custody.

    (2) Except in a situation arising under subdivisions (a)(3) or (4) of this section, the court shall immediately give custody to the lawful custodian if it finds that the lawful custodian is present before the court.

    (e) (1) A petitioner shall comply with the requirements of 9-27-312 with regard to the giving of a notice and the setting of a hearing.

    (2) The petitioner is immune from liability with respect to any conduct undertaken pursuant to this section unless it is determined that the petitioner acted with actual malice.
    Share:

    Lafayette Police Response Letter - something like the dog ate their records

    By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
    Phone: 510-460-5641
    Posted: 07/03/2013

    Reposted to Protect My Sons

    Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
    Related: Arson / Arson
    ======================================================================



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hubbard, Mike [mailto:mHubbard@lovelafayette.org]
    Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:47 AM
    To: pete@petebennett.net
    Subject: Response to e-mail

    Mr. Bennett,

    I did respond to your original e-mail that was sent last month. I asked that you either call the police station to make a report or come in to report the hit and run. The events you related in that email were confusing as you referred to yourself in the third person and others in the first person. We could not determine what you were trying to tell us. That is why I asked for you to call or come in. To date, these e-mails are all I have seen. In order to investigate the hit and run, I need you to speak with one of our traffic officers.


    Sent from my iPad

    ==== 
    Chief 

    I understand the cat, dog or police department ate your records but you have two problems with your response besides obstruction of justice Charges are few things I know.  This utility works very well in the E-discovery process which long before we crossed paths in these emails I was using back in .... 1995 so screw your pallid latent response.  The other part is my participation in this case where you'll my 2005 proposal that tripped up Wilson Socnis Rosati and GoodRich - never intended to do that it was their mistake.  

    Use Information Store Viewer (also called MDBVu32) to view or set details about a user’s message storage files, which consist of the private information store, the personal folder file (.Pst), the public store and the offline folder file (.Ost). The Information Store Viewer shows the properties available for each message, how you can use them, and in what format they appear. 
    Share:

    Hit and Run Accident Report Linked to Corruption Probe

    By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
    Phone: 510-460-5641
    Posted: 07/03/2013

    Posted to Protect My Sons 
    Related Cities: Lafayette, Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill  
    Related: Arson /  
    ======================================================================


    First Letter: 
    Sent: 09/29/2011 
    Using: MS Outlook to Contra Costa County Sherriff's offices 
    Contra Costa County IT Department: 
    Server Type: Microsoft Exchange Server Record 
    Sent with: Mail Transport Protocol Interface (MAPI) - See response email from Lafayette Chief Hubbard says: I did respond but you never replied hmm - I guess hit and runs that were or attempted murders mean little around Lafayette CA. 

    Burned Alive: That is very true 
    Arson/Murder Victim Eiko Sugihara 
    My highly accurate posting: ET Phone Home Rome is Burning
    Your Sheriff's department is lying to you
    ======================================================================





    Information regarding Hit and Run

    Date: July 20th 2011
    Time: 9:15 PM
    Weather/Conditions: Just past dusk, low light, clear
    City: Lafayette CA
    Intersection: EB Deer Valley Road at Central Road (SB)


    On July 20th 2011 the vehicle that I was traveling in was pushed off the road at Deer Valley Road and Central. The attached picture outlines the lead vehicle (the one pushed off the road) the trailing vehicle or suspect vehicle.   While stopped at the intersection waiting for the controlled left hand turn, the vehicle directly Vehicle One pulls up on along Vehicle 1 Drivers Door, with Extremely bright lights, possibly a police spot light or equivalent, proceeds to execute a maneuver that is best described as a police pursuit high speed chase where the lead car is spun out. 

    Vehicle was forced into the traffic island where the suspension system suffered over $3,500 in damage which was enough damage that Vehicle One was sold for salvage due the repair to value ratio.  Vehicle One was forced to take curb as another vehicle was rounding the curved exit from WB 24 to central Road.  A head on collision at 25-30 mph would have occurred if Vehicle One that was crowded from turn lane. 

    The suspect vehicle sped off SB on central – making a quick return to WB 24.  Suspect vehicle was a late model SUV Ford Expedition (2000-2004 body style).  In review of the intersection in August 2010 (with camera and pictures) the likely of driver error is very slim and it is very clear that Vehicle One was deliberately forced off the road. 

    Vehicle Two likely belongs to Retired San Francisco Police Officer Lt. David Oberhoffer (retired June2010), who resides in Pleasant Hill CA, who was also former Chief of Police McFarland CA recently abruptly fired on July 15th 2011 which was approximately 7 days after Mr. Pete Bennett’s conversation on July 6th 2010 with Walnut Creek Chief Of Police Bryden.  The details of that conversation boiled down to how Lt. Oberhoffer’s business (disastrous) relationship between July 2010 and November 2010 forced Mr. Bennett to flee Contra Costa County and close his business.   

    The other part of the Bennett/Bryden conversation was in regards to retired Police Officer from another local agency was connected to Mr. Bennett via another party.   The main reason for the vagueness is the mutual parties in Mr. Bennett’s opinion are extremely close to a Cold-Case in the County.   Mr. Bennett has ample reasons for being concerned due the fact Mr. Bennett was targeted by Chris Butler, Norman Weilsch, and other parties near the corruption probe.  These two retired officers are close in age and likely know each other via Law Enforcement Circles.   Their personal actions or through their associates managed to derail Mr. Bennett’s business in June 2011 and 2010 forcing Mr. Bennett to flee the area for his safety. 

    Mr. Bennett’s for his safety are supported by numerous suspicious incidents.  One being when Mr. Bennett’s truck exploded in flames back in 2004 and then three short weeks later Chris Butler appears just days after an assailant broke into Mr. Bennett’s house and attempted to kill Mr. Bennett during a fight in Mr. Bennett’s house by a town building inspector. 

    In July 2010, Mr. Oberhoffer entered Mr. Bennett’s software business located at 1925A Oak Park Blvd under the guise of becoming photographer in his retirement years.  By September 2010 it was apparent that Mr. Oberhoffer was running a disruption campaign on Mr. Bennett’s business Events surrounding that event will be filed in a separate police report in Pleasant Hill CA. 

    There is strong possibility there is a connection to Oberhoffer, Weilsch and Butler plus other officers who have at various times interfered with Mr. Bennett’s business. 

    The main this report is being filed late as Mr. Bennett was directly threatened by Police Officers in Walnut Creek and Danville in October 2010 where Mr. Bennett realized that his safety was in question and was advised to leave the area by another agency.  With the Federal Grand Jury Indictment’s pending Mr. Bennett perception is a real investigation will occur where somebody actually files a timely report. 

    I am not in the area and will only meet with Agents with the FBI or State Police present.   Keep in mind that Mr. Bennett knows a great deal about the Corruption Probe Investigation, has uncovered dozens of other victims related to Butler and has been a victim of violent crime that was premeditated. 

    There are far too many coincidences involving Mr. Bennett e.g. Trucks exploding in flames, tampered oil plugs, Mr. Bennett attorney has been assaulted in 2006 who was hired to sue the Town of Danville, threats to my counsel last year forced a sudden resignation, being forced off the road and the list goes, stolen equipment with no recovery, friends murdered with no investigation, customers murdered, and persons near me murdered.  This goes back over 20 years all the back to corrupt Pittsburg cops, some of which are work for CCSO.   I’ve done my research and it is extensive. 

    Respectfully,

    Pete Bennett
    925-478-0674




    Share:

    The Custody of the Laptop

    The Custody of the Laptop

    This page explains how my laptop that contained sensitive PG&E data that may have gotten into the wrong hands.  The endless cover-ups by agencies responsible for tracking arson have failed but more important have contributed exposing a major utility's databases.  I see it as a National Security Risk as I'm positive the Contra Costa Bar Association has gone out of their way to prevent me from retaining counsel.  


    Why the data was required


    Data Transfer from PG&E to Pete Bennett's Laptop

    When: May 2011  (updated date on 10/07/2013) 
    Where: PG&E Offices Willow Pass Road,  Concord CA 4th Floor Training/Meeting Room 
    From; Ravenelle Enterprises to Pete Bennett 
    Purpose: To Assist with PG&E HydroTesting program 

    Risk Based Event - Laptop breached by using coercing my son to reveal my passwords.  

    July 7th 2011:  Bennett while traveling minor son Chase Bennett was pulled over by CHP Officer Peck at the intersection of Newell Ave and Lancaster Drive.  Bennett's destination was Hillside Covenant Church 2060 Magnolia Way Walnut Creek CA to their weekly youth meeting. 

    When I stopped Officer Peck ran my license which returned that I lacked a license (Read the Golub Letter), I couldn't prove insurance but much to my surprise there was a warrant from Butte County in regards to PC-270 charge - failure to provide.  I got way behind on my Child Support but it wasn't intentional.  


    CHP Officer Peck who is one of the finest officers I've had to pleasure to meet didn't cuff me like many officers will do as knowing my son would end up with CPS allowed to make several calls.  Since I was heading to Hillside Covenant Church Thursday night Edge meeting I called Keith Lynds  who was the same youth director that urged me to bring my sons to Hillside in the first place.  


    My car and laptop were handed over Lynds and Bob Britz which was the biggest I ever made which contained PG&E sensitive pipeline data.  By using one of the many maps provided to me one could do a wide range of damage to PG&E Infrastructure.  The terrorist intelligence of this one page reveals the exact coordinates of a major pipeline segment.  


    My goal is to point out to PG&E that they are more important than all the meter readers in the land and this data breach should be a wake up call.  This one tiny vendor who was allowed on PG&E Property without a background check, hired near blindly, allowed access to critical data and then run off the road in Lafayette CA weeks later where they can't produce a police report seems too ridiculous to believe it could happened which you can read in my Blinded by the Cop where I'm practically outlining conspiracy to commit murder but the dog ate their records. 


    The arrest that day appears to be a complete setup which I'm suspecting leads to Walnut Creek Police Officers who in essence interupted my ability to conduct commerce.  


    Please see 18 USC § 1951 - Interference with commerce by threats or violence 


    I am sure a hit and run meets the test as the event was violent, planned and premeditated but more important it meets many definitions under RICO Statues which definitely leads over to my dispute with the Contra Costa Bar Association. as they can't find me counsel and since I can't afford counsel that equates to obstruction of Justice. They pulled this stunt in 2004 incident with Gary Collins see Bennett v. Collins a case died fast death when my attorney was beaten up but it didn't help they I was poisoned with bacteria that nearly killed me on 2005.




    Share:

    Lafayette Chief of Police Chief Huber - Documentation

     Blinded by the Cop



    Lafayette CA: In my article "Blinded by the cop" I outline the July 20th 2011, hit and run accident that today lacks a police report.  The two year anniversary has arrived with no recovery, only losses and more deaths in my article "The Dead Seeno List" where I've chronicled accidents, murders and incidents spanning 30 years. 
    Below is the first of several letters sent to Lafayette Police which should serve as adequate notice that someone tried to take my life but the response never arrived.  
    It's your tax dollars not mine. 
    Lafayette Letter Number One 

    I informed a police agency that a recent hit and run accident occurred at the intersection Deer Valley Road and First Ave via the email titled "Hit and Run Accident Report Linked to Corruption Probe" 
    Please note that Hubbard is gone but dude - the county IT department can prove you're lying and you're obstructing justice, committing perjury, deflecting an attempted murder case and unfortunately have inserted yourself into a much bigger story.
    The PG&E Gas Pipeline Explosion in San Bruno 
    This accident which was a close call forced me to dig up data leading me to Alamo Mormons which is connected to the death of one very good drummer that showed up and played for me. He's the son of a powerful attorney representing Contra Costa County, a prick named Al, and sues Chevron but his brother in-law represented me in my divorce court but failed to reveal ex-wife has been part of the Greenan Family for since the early 80s.  

    James Greenan's law firm obviously curry's favor with County Counsel, the DA and the Greenan influence is evident with the Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Taskforce (CNET)
    Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests






      This accident was intended to eliminate me which someone tried to do on my return trip from PG&E offices in Modesto.  PG&E doesn't seem to get the bigger picture but their pipeline data was breached on my laptop when I was arrested in what I call the perfectly choreographed fall guy. 




    Dax, when you get a chance please read these pages: 
    http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3310.aspx
    This would include Judge Golub who saddled me with 12,000 in fines.  
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6035-6038









    Share:

    Contra Costa Flaws

    Popular Posts

    Blog Archive

    Ad Home

    More Links

    Ways to Donate

    Card image

    Donate via Venmo

    Venmo is easy, fast and goes directly to a credit card.

    Donate Here

    Follow Us

    No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

    Flickr Images

    Featured

    javascript:void(0)
    Powered by Blogger.

    Comments

    Search This Blog

    Find Us On Facebook

    Random Posts

    Recent Posts

    Header Ads

    BlogRoll

    Labels

    Popular Posts

    Recent Posts

    Unordered List

    • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
    • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
    • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.

    Pages