23 April 2002
"When any person is intentionally deprived of his constitutional rights, those responsible have committed no ordinary offense.
A crime of this nature, if subtly encouraged by failure to condemn and punish, certainly leads down the road to totalitarianism."
J. Edgar Hoover (1952)
Headline:
San Diego DA frames citizen to cover for Sheriff
attack
Escondido, CA
Rod Mitchell, a 51 year old retired Naval Officer, was held at gunpoint on his private property by one San Diego Sheriff's deputy while a second deputy squirted him in the face and eyes with his chemical weapon. Both deputies immediately departed Mr. Mitchell's property. Mitchell called 911 to request help and was refused any assistance, medical or even a supervisor to sort out what had happened. The reason for the attack by the deputies is unclear. Mitchell feels it was in retaliation for his being frightened, angry and challenging why the first deputy was snooping around on his property at almost midnight and refusing to identify himself when challenged by Mitchell. The deputies later fabricated charges that Mitchell had attacked them TWICE, yet At NO time, either at the time of the incident or later, was there any attempt made to detain or arrest Mr. Mitchell. This is San Diego, cops gun down citizens in the streets on a regular basis for much less than this “Alleged” attack.
To coin a phrase here, it appears that the Sheriff and DA engaged in "Preventive
prosecution" to prevent progress of a lawsuit and manufactured false charges against Mitchell. Issues of Sheriff, DA,
attorney, and even judicial misconduct abound in this sad story. The real
name for it is "political prosecution",
something that is not supposed to happen in the United States, but it does occur
on a regular basis.
Mr. Mitchell filed an official citizen's complaint regarding the attack and subsequent activities with the San Diego County Sheriff
(Page1 ... Page2
... Page3 ... Page4
... Page5 ... Page6
... Page7). The
Sheriff refused to investigate the complaint, stating that, because they
were pushing (obviously false) criminal charges against Mitchell, they were not obligated to pursue an official citizen’s complaint of misconduct on the part of members of the Sheriff’s Department. Again, “Preventive prosecution”. This is violation of California Penal Code 832.5 which requires investigation into citizens’ complaints of misconduct.
Information released regarding the Sheriff's investigation reveals powerful
evidence of framing an innocent person for crimes that did not occur. The Sheriff detective “investigating” the incident, in order to prevent credibility issues from arising regarding a “witness”,
refused to pass to Child Protective Services a report of this “witness” knocking her 11-year-old daughter to the ground and kicking her. All law enforcement and other public officers are required under California law to make a report regarding any incident of suspected child or elder abuse.
The DA and Sheriff were so interested in convicting Mitchell of a crime that they affixed the records of another person to Mitchell. The judge and defense attorney were aware of this, yet did not consider it to be abnormal or in need of clarification before starting a trial.
In fact, it was not even Mitchell whose name was on all
the court papers.
The new Assistant DA engaged in some classic forms of prosecutorial misconduct to include the above stated affixing of another person's record to Mitchell, suppressing evidence, suborning perjury, falsely discrediting valid evidence, presenting a case based on raw, emotional appeal with no factual or evidential support,
paying a “Witness” to testify as directed by ridding a bench warrant that was out for
the arrest of this “Witness” until shortly after he testified in the case at which time the
arrest warrant suddenly disappeared.
The judge at trial was mysteriously selected, was new on the job after a long career as an Assistant DA, did not see it as improper and did not insist on verification of the identity and records affixed to Mitchell prior to allowing the trial to proceed. This judge even went to the extent of assisting the new Assistant DA at trial with hints and
provided false statements on the record in active support of the Assistant DA during trial.
Mr. Mitchell's sad story does not end here. In another mysterious piece of this bizarre series of incidents, Mitchell hired a second attorney to appeal his case. This attorney refused to contact Mitchell in over a year and allowed the DA to present more entirely false statements to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. The attorney hired by Mitchell, as learned later, had a history of misconduct, had been disbarred and would be vulnerable to manipulation on the part of the
DA or courts.
Mr. Mitchell submitted an official complaint to the California Attorney General regarding this Sheriff and DA misconduct. Mitchell supplied the AG with
documents (Page1 ... Page2
... Page3 ... Page4
... Page5) they demanded in their only correspondence
(Page1 ... Page2). This single letter from the AG, after multiple attempts by Mitchell in attempts to get the AG to respond to the complaints to no avail, was prompted by efforts of Assemblyman Kaloogian. Mitchell had summarized, as required by the Attorney General,
over 50 violations of California Penal Code engaged in by the Sheriff and DA as well as proof that he had exhausted all local efforts to have these criminal events addressed.
This report was also sent to the DA, but in a period of innocence not with a
return receipt requested ... of course, no response from the DA.
The Attorney General has continually refused to respond to Mitchell’s full response to the AG requirements
sent multiple times.
Mr. Mitchell submitted an official complaint to the San Diego Grand Jury reporting this criminal misconduct on the part of the Sheriff and DA. After a year, the foreman of the Grand Jury wrote that the
San Diego Grand Jury does not
deal with criminal events; in phone conversation with Mitchell, the foreman of the Grand Jury stated that he had no idea who would handle criminal complaints against the Sheriff and DA.
Mr. Mitchell hired a professional process server to serve
the District Attorney with an official complaint of
misconduct(Page1 ... Page2
... Page3 ... Page4
... Page5 ... Page6). The
District Attorney has refused to respond.
Because of the false conviction against Mitchell, he could not find an attorney to represent him in a federal civil rights lawsuit so he filed his own in San Diego Federal Court case #99-CV-1824-J (JFS)
(P1 ... P2
... P3 ... P4
... P5 ... P6
... P7 ... P8
... P9 ... P10
... P11 ... P12
... P13 ... P14). The standard argument presented in these cases by the legal representatives for police/prosecutors is that a person cannot bring
a civil rights suit against the police for any reason if the police/prosecutors have preemptively gained a criminal conviction referencing a case called Heck v. Humphrey.
Prosecutors further claim that they are immune from accountability for crimes and
lies, even in a courtroom, if they can get a conviction. Here is a
direct quote from arguments by San Diego County Counsel:
"In addressing the issue of whether common law immunities should apply to prosecutorial conduct that is alleged to be improper, unethical and perhaps even
criminal, the U.S. Supreme Court in Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427, 428 held in favor of
absolute immunity."
So the Sheriff and DA, supported by San Diego County Counsel, claims total immunity for any action committed by any
Sheriff's deputy, DA or witness brought forth by the prosecution even if they engage in criminal acts to get a conviction.
This is seen to be a consistent argument to protect criminal misconduct by all
law enforcement from being brought to light in a court of law.
This is a rather frightening series of events that points out citizens’ exceptional vulnerability to egregious criminal misconduct on the part of police and prosecutors.
See the actual papers relating to these events:
http://www.itsforthekids.com.
- - - - - -
Did you see this in your local newspaper? Of course not, the San Diego local mainstream media have been given this story multiple times, but they just are not interested. The media have abdicated their original charter of honestly reporting the news and instead are in the business of working to form public opinion. Keep this in mind as they attempt to find ways to restrict access and content on the Internet. The Internet is the only place any more to get the complete story.
