CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 17CM05470

 

For some odd reason, like maybe he is a total nut case, the Sunday manager at Mom Supermarket:

 ...decided to have me arrested this evening (three times), Sunday July 2, 2017,  for Vandalism (which ties in to trespassing, somehow, that only he knows, if one were actually to deliberately vandalize a dog trot, if, in theory, that were possible) he claims that the grass was trampled by me, but as you can see, it is pretty much trampled by everyone, and it has never been watered. There is no way to get in or out of your car without walking across the median.

 Never the less he has found himself a Buddhist to blame (me) and he looks very forlorn, he was going to go off on me, which would be felony witness tampering, so I spared him the indignity of being put under arrest: I walked away, without a fried fish, but when I got to my friends house down the street around back, she pulled a filet out of the fridge and we had fried fish for dinner, just the same! 

 

He is actually calling the police to arrest me for standing on the grass, of which there is none, he is telling them that it's all because of me, and sadly, they are stupid enough to buy his noise, because any arrest is a good arrest at SAPD.  I think this sort of attachment to calling the cops might be drug related, so every time he and Landhousing Security Services guard Mr. Corona call for a police response to the grass vandalism emergency, I walk over to a friend's house around the corner, finally she said, "Screw it, I have some fish in the fridge, why not just fry them up here, who needs Mom's, we can fry our own fish, which we did, when I got back to Mom's the duo called the cops on me again, so, I simply picked up desert at the gas station that sells fancy Mexican pastries, and treckd back over to visit my friend. I would have stayed but I forgot to charge my tape recorder and it was an arrest that needed to be preserved for posterity.

 Two Buddhist nuns try to make friends, but the guard gives them the Heave Ho. I wonder what it is about them that the Catholic clique at St. Barbara's find to be so disturbing, maybe I should go there next Sunday and ask. If he doesn't tell them to go somewhere else they stand in the doorway and in the parking lot all day every day, they like to walk up and down the food isles with their scholar satchels open for donations, most of them can't read: Vietnamese Buddhism was long ago taken over by gangs. The local newspaper publishes a column about the temples, it's always about who went to jail.

The People v. Nancy Wood

For some reason I got locked out of my own blogspot page, sigh of exasperation, but now I am back, working from most recent articles, back to where we left off. My trial is on June 10, 2017: So far the Public Defender has completely ignored me, when you get to the end of this letter of legal analysis, for my Public Defender, who won't read it, there is a short story that I sent to him, to illuminate the problem. I'll Marsden him out in a few days, nothing else seems to get his attention, I suppose being fired from my case by a judge will. He does what they all do, ignore the case, I might have to fire a few. 

Dear Andrew Dinh, I am wondering if you have prepared a defense regarding the fact of an unlawful citizen's arrests on which the prosecution would be prohibited from basing their case for a violation of CPC 602.1 (a). Fruit of the poisoned tree. They can't prosecute me if my due process rights were violated during the arrests of April 23, and 30, 2017, and detention, of May 21, 2017 (to say nothing of the fact that there is no evidence of the charge) the citizen bringing the charge may be a victim of Korsakoff syndrome, alcoholic wet brain, he had not even heard of the code until the unlawful detention was made by the police on May 21, 2017, and had not looked it up until a week after the arrest. He said that it had too many big words so he watches u-tubes on how to do a security guard job instead of attempting to understand the charges. He insists that there is evidence that he compiled, (it's of pedestrian in roadway, someone else not me). I'm wondering why you were not provided with all of the prosecution's pictures, recordings, and videos for the pre-trial, the Landhousing gurad constantly blusters at me about his copious quantities of 'evidence,' he likes to intimidate me with all of that, maybe the prosecution failed to disclose because it would have made you laugh out loud. You probably should have sent and investigator or a subpoena to get the 'evidence' fifteen days ago, instead of waiting until we ran out of time.

(R.S. §1979;   Pub. L. 96–170, §1, Dec. 29, 1979,   93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, §309(c),   Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.) An arrest is classed as a citizens arrest when, an arrest is made by a person who does not normally have powers of arrest it is a citizens arrest when before the police arrive that person states, "I arrest you."

STATEMENT OF NANCY WOOD: Mr. Corona, the author of the Citizen's Arrests, asks me a lot of questions; I'm trying to meditate, I get to the Market after 4:PM, I need to meditate before dinner, he won't let me! For example, he demands a yes or no answer. He asked me whether or not the Market fries shrimp. I told him all of the options. He insisted, “give me a yes or no answer,” I said, 'No, no markets fry shrimp, only whole fish,' he kept asking me to answer 'yes or no.' (see Evidence Exhibit, tape recordings)

Poling did the same thing, he demanded “Answer me yes or no, during the detention of April 23, 2017, “is this a business yes or no? Did Mr. Corona ask you to leave yes or no!” Poling got mad when I quoted exactly what Corona had said, “I'm going to have you arrested.” I'm guessing that they piece my answers together, out of context, into their phone video; claiming its me answering however they would have wished for me to have answered, in a way that gives them a confession perhaps. Orange PD did the same thing, I sued them for Defamation and I won.

The security guard never actually said 'I'm arresting you,' he never asked me to 'leave the property;' all he said was, “I can't have you here, I am going to have you arrested.” The criteria to charge 602.1. (a), was never met. The Market has no surveillance camera in the parking lot, the police make too much kick-back money racketeering there to ever allow that, even after the murders and burglaries.

They want to construct a video that makes it seem as if Corona asked me to leave and I said 'no.' He videoed me demonstrating the difference between Obstructing traffic, and Pedestrian in Roadway. I turned on my voice activated recorder witness; I suspected that Corona wanted something he could splice in as my voice; into a 'created' surveillance video; I explained, “'Obstructing' is when someone holds up traffic by standing in the roadway blocking cars from proceeding to their destination, like this: 'None May Pass Here,' but, Stepping off of the curb so that a car has to skirt around you is 'Pedestrian in Roadway.'” I got the creepiest feeling while I was telling him the difference between the two codes that he would dub my voice, 'none may pass here' into his 'evidence' of a crime that never happened. Corona is the kind of creep who claims that he can get the criteria that he lacks for a 602.1 (a) Interference with a Business, and he does not care how he gets it, “I've got you...” (see tapes). Why else is he always bothering me with questions and ridiculous statements if he isn't conniving 'documentation' of crime? When I present the tape recordings of what really happened before he created his video version of crimes that never took place, he will be arrested for 'making perjured statements to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime.' and for witness tampering, and for harassment.

In the arrests and detention at issue neither Corona nor the Market manager arrested Wood, the arrests and detention were instigated and performed by patrol officers, who obtained signatures after the fact, to my knowledge the police contact was not initiated by citizens. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest when he or she sees a felony being committed, and acts to arrest the perpetrator before the police arrive. The police eventually show up, and process the arrest according to procedure. The citizen is subject to liability laws and prosecution for false arrest, if the arrestee is obviously not committing a felony: Citizens arrest are for extreme and obvious cases. A proper police arrest.. is when a police officer notices someone violating the law or has discovered through other means that there is reason to believe someone has violated the law.. and he signs the affidavits and paperwork etc.. testifying to that. A Citizen Arrest in the absence of a felony is an Unlawful Arrest, the police do not make a sworn statement that they believe a crime has been committed, the private citizen who made the arrest does. In the arrests at issue the police made the arrest, the citizen was enlisted to sign the Arrest form after the fact. It was the police not the citizen who stated that an arrest was being made. The police being part of the government have governmental immunity from lawsuits except in extreme cases, such as conspiring to make an Unlawful Arrest, and requiring an after the fact Citizen Arrest; both perpetrated at the arrests and detentions at issue. A private citizen does not have immunity from prosecution and law suits.

Making a citizen's arrest. CA Penal 245 (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or with insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the arrested individual can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, it is in violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

In the arrests and detention at issue neither Corona nor the Market manager arrested Wood, the arrests and detention were instigated and performed by patrol officers, who obtained signatures after the fact, to my knowledge the police contact was not initiated by citizens. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest when he or she sees a felony being committed, and acts to arrest the perpetrator before the police arrive. The police eventually show up, and process the arrest according to procedure. The citizen is subject to liability laws and prosecution for false arrest, if the arrestee is obviously not committing a felony: Citizens arrest are for extreme and obvious cases. A proper police arrest.. is when a police officer notices someone violating the law or has discovered through other means that there is reason to believe someone has violated the law.. and he signs the affidavits and paperwork etc.. testifying to that. A Citizen Arrest in the absence of a felony is an Unlawful Arrest, the police do not make a sworn statement that they believe a crime has been committed, the private citizen who made the arrest does. In the arrests at issue the police made the arrest, the citizen was enlisted to sign the Arrest form after the fact. It was the police not the citizen who stated that an arrest was being made. The police being part of the government have governmental immunity from lawsuits except in extreme cases, such as conspiring to make an Unlawful Arrest, and requiring an after the fact Citizen Arrest; both perpetrated at the arrests and detentions at issue. A private citizen does not have immunity from prosecution and law suits.

Making a citizen's arrest. CA Penal 245 (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or with insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the arrested individual can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, it is in violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

A citizen who violates a suspects rights, or who violates the applicable state law in detaining the suspect, (for example, arresting a suspect for a misdemeanor is a crime when the state statute requires a felony for a citizens arrest). Additionally, if it is found that the arresting party did not meet the pertinent state requirements for a citizens arrest, charges may be dropped entirely.

A person who has been unfairly arrested by a citizen, or illegally detained as a suspect during an illegitimate citizens arrest, can prosecute:Peace officers in the state of California are NOT obligated to accept a private person(s) arrest. At no time did the responding officers explain the civil ramifications to the citizens wishing to make an arrest. They were not given the opportunity to change their mind. The officers did not conduct an investigation necessary to make a prudent decision and can not demonstrate that they conducted a proper investigations prior to accepting a private person(s) arrest. They are an embarrassment to the law enforcement community. It is incumbent on the citizen to make the arrest, an authorization instigated by the police is not a Citizen Arrest, for which the police are liable. The police witnessed no crime, there was no felony. Wood was handcuffed, arrested, booked, and charged two times with misdemeanors in the absence of an investigation, or criteria for a violation. And detained on a third occasion, similarly.

CPC 847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances: (1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful. (2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested. (3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839.

837. A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

On each occasion of the Unlawful Arrests and Unlawful Detention at issue Wood requested that the person(s) making the citizen arrests be arrested for harassment and for making a false 911 call, the officers stated that there was no 911 call, but did not state to what they were responding, saying, 'there are many reasons why we could come here, there was no 911 call.

142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the sheriff may determine whether any jail, institution, or facility under his or her direction shall be designated as a reception, holding, or confinement facility, or shall be used for several of those purposes, and may designate the class of prisoners for which any facility shall be used. (c) This section shall not apply to arrests made pursuant to Section 837.

The District Attorney used the CA statue 601.2(a) x post facto in an unlawful attempt to create the criteria for the Citizen Arrest charge (602 (t). The preemptive charge 602.1 (a) sets precedence that the arrest scene, that Mom Supermarket is indeed a business, not residential property The exclusions therein exempts anyone exercising constitutional rights ie. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, transit, and freedom to pursue the enjoyments of life: “to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ." Meyer v Nebraska (1923) -Justice McReynolds. The citizen(s) made a citizen's arrest on (disputable) misdemeanor offenses in front of the police. They (PD) complied despite it being unlawful, in the absence of a felony offense. At all three incarcerations the officers declared that they HAVE to arrest, in fact they are not required to. Officers are required to conduct an investigation to determine reasonable cause to believe that the arrest is lawful, no investigation was undertaken. (see Exhibits, transcripts of arrests)

If the officers are there and Do Not see a crime, or see that a crime didn't occur, then they can't possibly have reasonable cause to believe the arrest is lawful.

Police officers can't disbelieve their own eyes: By refusing to arrest the citizen when it is clear that the citizen is making an unlawful arrest the officers commit a "willful refusal to arrest" which would subject the officer to punishment. The law “requires” the officer to think.

HARASSMENT IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 - 1062.20] (1) “Course of conduct” is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual... (2) “Credible threat of violence” is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety ... and that serves no legitimate purpose. (3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. Civil code section 646.91 (a) (such as)...willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed by another person who has made a credible threat with the intent of placing the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety... within the meaning of CPC section 646.9.

Nancy Wood is continually Harassed in a manner defamatory to her character, at the strip mall, in the absence of a crime or law enforcement purpose, by patrol officers acting in accordance with the personal edicts and unwritten policies of Landhousing security guard Mr. Corona (see Exhibits herein).

Obviously the spirit of the law; the intent of the law, is aimed at public safety for travelers advancing to a given destination, who are forced to make contact with a security guards by the spectacle of harassment and threats. Nancy Wood was not interfering with or obstructing commerce, but rather had remained, on the median in the parking lot while, waiting, while a fish she had purchased at Mom Supermarket , to be fried in the Market: (Photo exhibit attached)

Did you have Fountain Valley Hospital send you my medical records from the 2010 car accident; did you contact Arther Hausman (Irvine), about expert witness testimony; he was the PI lawyer who handled the case.

In Re Marquez, case note 8, at pages 605-606 states counsel is obligated to investigate and pursue mitigating evidence, even if a preliminary investigation might disclose harmful evidence derived from the same leads. Counsel must learn the nature and strength of the evidence, good or bad, to know whether to present the evidence at trial.

Be sure not to overlook mitigating evidence relating to failing health, severe impairment due to injuries sustained in a car accident, and related history of homelessness, have you started an investigation into mitigation. 

A very significant factor in the case of In Re Cordero (1988) 46 Cal.3d 161 was defense counsel’s failure to detect impairment, investigate it, and raise impairment as a defense at trial. The California Supreme Court reversed Cordero’s conviction because of this type of ineffective assistance of counsel.

I am incapacitated and my injury is a significant consideration in my daily existence. Counsel should attempt to have the exact degree of my condition clinically evaluated, to advance an impairment defense or to offer impairment as a mitigating factor relating to sentencing. I am immobile for extended periods of time during which I draw, at strip malls. This defense is pivotal to the case.

Blanton v. Womancare (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396 at page 404 states that no attorney has the right to impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action itself. Nor may an attorney stipulate to a matter which would eliminate a substantial defense.

Apparently the prosecution does not feel that they need to prepare a case, so they aren't going to give you anything, they just show up for trial and win: The 'win' is on the house, 'thrown,' by virtue of a total abrogation of a defense.

Also did you find out why the Pitches motion return only contained one arrest when there were actually six arrest incidents, three of which resulted in custody, the return should have contained several 911 calls from me.

Could you please download the files from the thumb drive and give the drives back to me, I'll pick them up at the front desk: The Orange PD is expecting me to give them a recording on a thumb drive, of my next door neighbor in 'Camp Mom From Hell,' hanging one of many pets that have disappeared lately, along the River Bike Trail, as a means of coercing her three year old into sitting still while mom is on a drug run. I just found out recently that her daughter's is named, Jasmine, not 'Shut Up You Funking Bitch or I'll Hang You Just Like Her.' The police sent a helicopter to search for Jasmine, when Mom From Hell passed out drunk and lost track of her, and yet, child protective services won't check up on Hell Mom's tent, and the police won't arrest Jasmine's parents for child endangerment, “Mind your own business Nancy, she was with her dad, where she was supposed to be.” Actually she wasn't, she was asleep about half a mile down the road where she nodded out from exhaustion looking for her mom, if her dad had not been walking down the road and discovered her I would not be asking you for my thumb drives back because the River Bike Trail where we live is a child abductor's nirvana. The police get at least ten complaints about child abuse and neglect regarding Jasmine's parents, every week, the self appointed sheriff of the Camp, a homeless 'tuff guy,' has a file on Hell Mom, but the police always say, “we have no proof,” I have a tape that I call, “Jasmine killed the Lindbergh baby and is the root of all evil, according to her mom,” in which her mom screams at her for six hours non stop at full volume, as she does every day, all day, and also I have the tape of the hanging of the neighborhood pets tape. The police know about the missing animals because two of them were not willing to go quietly and were rescued from Hell Mom's tent. But knowing is not proof. Just between you and I, proof is not proof if the perp is putting out for police. But it's worth a try.

POSSIBLE MOTIONS AND DEFENSES:

I, Defendant Nancy Wood, demand (1) that a request for verbatim transcript be filed before trial, sufficient time to fully prepare for trial, having been given (2) that the prosecution be excluded from Hearing, and has no role to play in the hearing, (3) the Hearing to be verbatim reported by the stenographic method, and the hearing transcript sealed for use in any subsequent appeal, and as a record of defense counsel’s actions before trial, to avoid an inaccurate and unreliable trial verdict, unnecessary appeals and reversals, and to do so at the earliest practicable point of awareness: Motion is appropriate before or during trial, presented verbally or written: normal formalities, advance written notice, and third party service are matters of courtesy and convenience not jurisdiction. The motion is based upon these moving papers, upon these Points and Authorities, upon the entire court file and full record in this action, and upon such evidence and argument as the court shall receive when the motion is heard.

LAW

A misdemeanor defendant may have a verbatim transcript upon demand. In Re Armstrong (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 565 at page 574 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 902 states, "We have, by our instant decision, held that, upon request therefore, there is a constitutional right that a verbatim record be provided at public expense for all defendants in misdemeanor matters." Defendant Nancy Carolyn Wood demands a verbatim transcript at the hearing, at any other court hearings, and at trial.

Defendant invokes her constitutional right to have counsel competently and fully assist in the defense of the accused, both before and during trial.

The Calif. Supreme Court in People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121; 954 P.2d 384 at page 1085 at case note #2.

Effective assistance of counsel is shown both by specific acts, and by general practices.

The standards of both effective and ineffective assistance may be determined by the laws, by the decisional case law, by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and by reference to leading legal treatises.

ZEALOUS AND DILIGENT, CCP 128.7 standard. In addition to all other standards, Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 requires counsel to: know his facts before pleading or arguing a position CCP 128.7 (b) (2) and CCP 128.7 (b) (3); know the laws that apply to those facts CCP 128.7 (b) (2); only sign a pleading or make an argument based on "an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" CCP 128.7 (b); only argue facts and contentions that have evidentiary support or that will likely be supported after reasonable investigation and discovery CCP 128.7 (b) (3); only make those arguments that are supported by the facts and by existing law OR BY A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION, OR REVERSAL OF EXISTING LAW. CCP 128.7 (b) (2).

Counsel must also know how to reasonably ask for a change, exception, or distinguishment of existing law in the trial court. Most landmark decisions in criminal cases, the sorts of cases that are even known to lay people, were in fact CHANGES OF EXISTING LAW. Examples of landmark changes in existing law are: Mapp v. Ohio -- search & seizure exclusionary rule; Miranda v. Arizona -- Miranda warning, right to remain silent; Gideon v. Wainwright -- right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor cases.

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: In Re Steven Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, case note 4, at page 1133 states that defense counsel have the obligation to investigate ALL defenses, explore the factual bases for defenses and the

applicable law. Counsel must make an independent evaluation of the charges, applicable law and evidence, and of the risks and probable outcome of trial.

Defense counsel will receive a file containing hundreds of pages of admissible evidence including legal arguments from Wood, as of the day of the pre-trial.

In Re Vargas, case note 7, at page 1136 states Defendant is entitled to reasonably competent assistance of counsel acting as a diligent and conscientious advocate. Before counsel acts or decides Declaration in Support of Defendant Wood's Motion to Dismiss

not to act, counsel must make a rational and informed decision based on adequate investigation and preparation. The entire preparation to date consists of the arraignment, at which the Prosecution offered to dismiss the case in exchange for DNA. And one return on the Pitches motion, where a dozen returns were anticipated. Wood, refused to take any prosecution offers, or to wave time.

In Re Vargas, at page 1138 states the reasonableness of counsel’s tactical choices requires scrutiny of whether the choices were informed choices, preceded by adequate investigation and preparation. Defense counsel stated, “You should take the offer to dismiss, we can talk about it later. ” Counsel added that there is time to get a Pitches motion on the table, he added, “I have Pitches to file on other cases, so that works out well. Counsel told Defendant that she misunderstands the requirement that states a Citizen Arrest can only be made regarding a felony. And stated that Defendant had confused the rules and was probably thinking of the rule that requires police officers to witness the crime for which they are making an arrest. Wood objected to being characterized as dyslexic. Counselor Dinh continued to characterize Wood as confused and dyslexic when she said she wanted to stipulate to a judge not a commissioner. Counselor admonished that Jury trials are always heard by judges, Defendant asserted that demanding a jury trial at this point is not a preclusion to any changes in the future, and quoted the judge, “If you remain silent on the subject of a Judge you are agreeing to accept a Commissioner.” Wood asked for Counsel's email in order “to send you the law, that states... (Citizen Arrests in the absence of a felony are unlawful). Counsel shut Wood up by talking over her. But did provide his email. 

In Re Vargas, at page 1140 states Defense Counsel is supposed to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case with his client. 

Counsel will receive Woods written submissions and documents, containing possible defenses and exonerating evidence, before the pre-trail of June 30, 2017, In anticipation of Counsel's investigation, pretrial research, and preparation, and synopsis of the arraignment, which was an attempt to force a DNA test; a contingent offer to dismiss.

In Re Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 584, case note 6, at pages 603-604 states defense counsel should diligently seek out, interview, and subpoena relevant witnesses. All witnesses in the case, are in Orange County, and most are expected to be in Santa Ana. Counsel should subpoenaed any witness in relation to any of Defendant Woods defenses, available for phone appointment or to communicate by email, witnesses are available and in communication with Defendant daily, their contact information has been supplied to Counsel.

In Re Marquez, case note 8, at pages 605-606 states counsel is obligated to investigate and pursue mitigating evidence, even if a preliminary investigation might disclose harmful evidence derived from the same leads. Counsel must learn the nature and strength of the evidence, good or bad, to know whether to present the evidence at trial; mitigating evidence relating to Defendant Wood's failing health, severe impairment due to injuries sustained in a car accident, and related history of homelessness, heart disease aggravated by the three consecutive unlawful incarcerations: Counsel should start an investigation into mitigation.

A very significant factor in the case of In Re Cordero (1988) 46 Cal.3d 161 was defense counsel’s failure to detect impairment, investigate it, and raise impairment as a defense at trial. The California Supreme Court reversed Cordero’s conviction because of this type of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defense counsel Dinh has been informed that Defendant Wood is incapacitated and that her injury is a significant consideration in her daily existence. Counsel should attempt to have the exact degree of Defendant Wood's condition clinically evaluated, and attempt to advance an

impairment defense or to offer impairment as a mitigating factor relating to sentencing. Wood

is immobile for extended periods of time during which she draws. This defense is pivotal to the case.

Blanton v. Womancare (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396 at page 404 states that no attorney has the right to

impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action itself. Nor may an attorney stipulate to a matter which would eliminate a substantial defense.

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARD

The State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct govern the conduct of attorneys. The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to all California attorneys. The Rules of Professional Conduct define good attorney practices even despite expert witness testimony to the contrary. The Rules of Professional Conduct require all attorneys to:

1. Investigate the facts;

2. Know the law that applies to the facts, or learn the law before trial, or get additional associate counsel who know the law;

3. Regularly communicate with the client about the significant events of the case;

4. Don't have conflicts of interest, or, declare such conflicts of interest openly.

Obligations arising from the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, and the cases supporting and applying the Rules of Professional Conduct, are readily available.

The use of legal treatises, case digests, annotated code sets, and case reporting services is an efficient and productive means of doing legal research into criminal defenses. Code of Civil Procedure section 1899 states:

"Unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, as mentioned in Section 1896, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the Courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the Courts, and the treatises of learned men."

A lawyer who is properly motivated and has modest diligence can evaluate and prepare a variety of defenses for almost any accusation. Such a motivated, diligent lawyer can also inform himself of his duty of effective representation and zealous, diligent advocacy.

With a DNA contingent offer to dismiss, the only alternative being conviction in the absence of a

crime: Researching and preparing is essential. Prior to that counsel Comfort endorsed an unlawful

reduction to an infraction and a fine, advising Defendant to take a plea deal to an infraction; an

unlawful attempt to deprive defendant of a jury trial: The prosecution offered to dismiss the case,

pending obtaining DNA, yet counsel created a prosecution plea, stating with certainty of loss, “They will probably just give probation (if you loose), what’s wrong with that!” Wood does not intend to lose, and does not accept any plea, particularly not probation. Counsel's comment shows an unwillingness to adequately represent Defendant, if at all: Proof that the Public Defender intends to make only negligible or incompetent use of the wealth of readily available defense resources. When questioned about the public defenders office research sources, at the arraignment, counsel did not respond, indicating that Wood should take whatever deal is offered by the Prosecution: Trade DNA for a dismissal on a factually baseless charge: Or go to court with a Public Defender's assurance of loss that will result in probation. Wood refused, stating that subjugating a defendant to the court procedure, in a baseless charge, in order to extort DNA, is unlawful, as is reducing a misdemeanor to an infraction for the purpose of depriving a defendant of a jury trial: per the Prosecutions offer.

Defendant Wood asserts that she was not charged with an infraction and that the code, at issue,

does not carry an infraction. There are no other applicable alternatives charges. Counsel Dinh commented, “the prosecution probably did not dismiss because they think they have enough evidence to win, they bring cases on shopping carts!” Clearly this case is understood to be an effort to nail a bag lady.

POTENTIAL DEFENSES AVAILABLE

As a lay person, using resources available at OCPLL, or, on the Internet, Defendant Wood has been able to identify potential defenses, and case authority to support those defenses. RESEARCH

RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Orange County Public Law Library, located in the Santa Ana Civic

Center, has numerous legal treatises on criminal defense, including treatises by the Witkin Institute, Matthew Bender, West Publishing Group, Laurie Levenson, and CEB (Continuing Education of the Bar). There are also five sets of relevant case digests - the California Official Digest ("McKinney Digest"), West's California Digest 2nd edition, West's Federal Practice Digest 4th edition (for federal constitutional issues), CalJur, and ALR (American Law Reports). There are two versions of annotated California codes - West's and Deering's

All of these criminal defense resources are on the open shelves of the Orange County Public Law

Library. Additionally, OCPLL has both CD-ROM and Internet access to various case reporting

services. For her purposes, a potential defense is (1) a legal argument that could reasonably be

made pre-trial, (2) facts, authorities, and arguments that could reasonably appeal to a jury at trial

and thereby prevent conviction, (3) a combination of factors that might mitigate sentencing.

A trained and motivated defense counsel would be able to make a well supported list of defenses.

Wood is factually not guilty, she met none of the criteria for an arrest, and she has a history of being harassed by the Santa Ana Officers that motivated the reprisal arrests, and unlawful detention at issue. Competent counsel could research and develop these facts for a bullet-proof defense argument.

Another potential defense is, credibility of the arresting and investigating officers under Evidence

Code section 780, further supported by favorable returns from a Pitchess motion to get police

personnel files (described in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) Evidence Code

section 780 allows one to test a witness for credibility on the basis of character, bias, motive, or

prejudice, among other things. Since the officers have an alleged history of engaging in

harassment against, those who they define as undesirable, with the potential of a misdemeanor

arrest as leverage, and since they did at previous contacts violate Defendant’s Civil Rights, this

defense would be particularly appropriate.

Another potential defense is Selective Prosecution, as in the Murgia-Baluyut defense based on

discriminatory prosecution or selective enforcement. Murgia v. Municipal Court (Bakersfield ) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286 prevents prosecutions based on "invidious discrimination". The California Supreme Court fully re-affirmed Murgia, and simplified the proof of Murgia discrimination, in Baluyut v. Superior Court (Santa Clara) (1996) 12 Cal.4th 826 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 101; 911 P.2d 1.

Murgia-Baluyut adds to any "as applied" challenge to an ordinance. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402; 892 P.2d 1145, a leading Calif. case on homelessness, states that "as applied" challenges are permitted even against ordinances which have survived "facial" constitutional challenges.

Procedural details on Murgia-Baluyut motions, thresholds, and permissible ranges of discovery are all covered in the treatises.

Material for a Murgia-Baluyut defense may come from Brady-Brown discovery returns of"exculpatory evidence" (BRADY v. MARYLAND (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and In Re John George Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 698; 952 P.2d 715), from Pitchess discovery returns of police personnel files (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), from Fowler discovery returns of police radio messages, patrol car computer messages, and 911 emergency line audiotapes (Fowler v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 215). Additional ways to support Murgia-Baluyut defenses are to thoroughly scrutinize the legislative history of the Codes at issue, including transcripts of all official meetings at which the Codes were discussed; check newspaper archives and databases for discriminatory statements of the Mayor, City and County Council members, the City Attorney, District Attorney, and high ranking police official; demand discovery of every document that the police department has that discusses or mentions the Code in any way; demand copies of police reports for every recent enforcement of the Code to identify names of homeless people or addresses frequently used by homeless people. Counsel should assume that there has been discrimination and aggressively look to prove that discrimination.

Defendant Wood proposed this defense to arraignment Defense counsel, stating that the officers

have been using the Codes to convert arrestees into prostitutes, and have recruited addicts, purse snatchers, panhandlers, and other types of strip mall racketeers 'working' the Market in order to extract kick backs, on threat of jail (see photo exhibits), while enlisting perjured ‘witness’ statements from security guards to gain convictions, with no basis in fact, so often that the practice has become pervasive.

Wood observed that for the past four years the Codes have been applied to eliminate observers to the lucrative, cop-un rackets. The extent can be determined by investigation and discovery motions and by analyzing the verbatim transcript of the arrests and unlawful detention in their entirety. The evidence also contains declarations from witnesses at the scene and from witnesses to the perpetration of identical civil rights violations by Santa Ana Officers. The research or arguments and affidavits, provided by Wood, photographs taken at the arrest scene, will challenge the prosecution.

Another defense could be based on Wheeler-Harris attack on composition of jury pool because there may be too few women, too few poor people, too few homeless people, too few Buddhist nuns and too few disabled people, to comprise an adequate “peer” jury for Defendant Wood. People v. James Michael Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 and People v. Lee Edward Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 782; 679 P.2d 433. Wheeler-Harris attacks are explained by the Calif. Supreme Court in People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575; 22 P.3d 347 at page 566 at case notes No. 1a and No. 2 [1a] Defendant argues the trial court erred under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying the motion to quash. [2] "Under the federal and state Constitutions, an accused is entitled to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16; Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 358-367 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 583-588, 99 S.Ct. 664];

People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1159 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315].) That guarantee

mandates that the pools from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive

groups in the community. (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 842 [268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983].) 'In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the

defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the

community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.' (Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at pp. 586-587]; People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1159.) ... If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of systematic under representation, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide either a more precise statistical showing that no constitutionally significant disparity exists or a compelling justification for the procedure that has resulted in the disparity in the jury venire. (People v. Sanders[, supra,] 51 Cal.3d 471, 491....)" (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1087-1088 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478] (Horton).)

Edward Harris, a capital defendant, is alive today because of Harris challenges. Defense counsel Dinh should acknowledged the potential "Wheeler-Harris" approach.

Another possible defense is, Diminished Capacity or impairment or handicap defense, regarding

Defendant Wood's injury. This will require examination of the Defendant by qualified experts, and

expert reports. The degree to which a particular condition causes impairment is a complicated legal issue requiring diligent research.

Also appropriate for Defendant Wood, is a 'Necessity Defense' because of a long history

incapacitate due to an easily aggravated back, leg, and jaw injury, and homelessness. Presented as a variant of the "Eichorn defense" (used by James Eichorn, defending against a Santa Ana camping ordinance violation) this defense requires expert examinations and expert opinions. Defense counsel must make sure the Defendant meets all the necessity criteria.

In re James Eichorn (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 382 at page 389 at case note #4, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 535

states:

[4] An instruction on the defense of necessity is required where there is evidence "sufficient to

establish that defendant violated the law (1) to prevent a significant evil, (2) with no adequate

alternative, (3) without creating a greater danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief

in the necessity, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable, and (6) under circumstances in

which he did not substantially contribute to the emergency. [Citations.]" (People v. Pepper (1996)

41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1035 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 877]; People v. Pena (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 [197

Cal.Rptr. 264].) Wood's unobtrusive presence at the Market is necessitated by her unique status in

and valuable contribution to the community as a disabled Tibetan Buddhist strip mall portrait artist.

JURY TRIAL WAIVER

Defense counsel has agreed not to wave time. Counsel Comfort however told Wood at the arraignment that she would be at the mercy of the jury, who would interpret the evidence however they chose, “A judge can't help you there.” This odd means of discouraging Wood from exercising her right to a trial is perplexing; abdicating a successful outcome for Wood. By his admonition on the matter Counsel Comfort has attempted to unlawfully pressure Defendant Wood into waiving her right to a speedy jury trial. Counsel has not bothered to determine who the judge is. Wood has called his office twice a day consistently from the June 6,2017, to June 13, 2017; but has been told that he is not available. Wood has had to send her submissions to the general delivery address of the Public Defenders office.

Treating the court process like a card game by dealing Defendant's due process rights out of her hand is constitutionally violative: Since the US Supreme Court decided UNITED STATES v. JACKSON (1968) 390 U.S. 570 there has been no reason to convene a bench trial instead of a jury trial. In Jackson, a defendant under the Federal Kidnap Act faced a possible death sentence if he lost a jury trial, whereas he got life if he lost a bench trial. "The inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. If the provision had no other purpose or effect than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it would be patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 US 570 at page 581.

The Jackson decision outlawed any sentencing scheme where different penalties for bench trials vs. jury trials are offered. Subsequently if the penalty range is the same, a Defendant absolutely wants the primary benefit of a jury: one vote to avoid conviction.

Should Defense counsel Dinh decide that there is no need for fact finding by a jury and insists on a jury waiver, he will have to immediately file a motion to vacate the jury trial waiver, and restore Defendant's constitutional right to a jury.

ADEQUATE DEFENSE

Counsel Comfort refused to look at Defendant's submissions at the arraignment, “I'm not your

lawyer.” Counsel Dinh agreed to look at Defendant's submissions at the pre-trial, (June 30, 2017),

Wood stated, “I taped the arrest. The police report is a perjured statement to gain a conviction. It's not about trespassing or obstructing, I wasn't obstructing or trespassing, it's about what I saw and what I know about Landhousing Security Service and the police using the property and guards to run rackets, I taped the arrests and detention.” Counsel replied, “I don't want you to have to wait around all day while I have to be somewhere else, one of the girls at the table will help you.” The case will be dismissed at the pre-trail.” The case was not dismissed at the pre-trial, Defendant Wood was told Counsel Dinh that there was nothing to discuss and he would e-mail if ther was, he had not had time to open the 100 pages of exhibits and arguments that she had delivered to his office. Although she was allowed to offer her facts, arguments, and evidence to the prosecution,in order to force a dismissal. They are still sitting, unopened, on Defense Counsel's desk.

Defense preparation requires effort. Counsel has to be willing to make the effort to defend Wood.

A defense counsel has to be alert and courteous when dealing with the client; willing to meet or

confer regularly and frequently; willing to accommodate client's wishes when it is legal and

reasonable to do so; willing to be alert to potential defenses that are typical of people in client's

situation even if client doesn't know enough law to raise a particular defense issue; willing to cover the cost of the defense, including aggressive investigation of facts, leads, witnesses, documents, and thorough research into various legal alternatives and defenses; willing to file frequent detailed reports to get reimbursement for expended funds, or file motions to obtain advance court ordered funds for investigation, research, and expert witnesses. Or declare to the court that defense counsel cannot afford to conduct a proper defense and must withdraw. Defense counsel must ask probing questions, dig hard for the facts, file discovery motions, and research the corners off of law books, with a good computerized case reporting service and heavy reliance on treatises and case digests, consult a good research paralegal, a good field investigator, and get results through document returns from timely and well argued discovery motions.

Defense counsel can not be reluctant to meet or confer with his client; must agree to proposed

meetings, before the trial, without reluctance examine his client's written documentation, that will accomplished a dismissal.

Defense counsel seems to hope “Maybe they will dismiss.” Relying on hope creates a strong

conflict of interest with his zealous defense of client Wood, who also wants the case over with,

as quickly, as possible, while putting a committed effort into winning the case.

So far the “investigative ,” effort by the Public Defenders office, by Counsel Comfort consists

simply of interrogating Wood about homelessness, “You are not a criminal why are you homeless,” concluding with, “I'm not your lawyer, you will find out who he is at the

pre-trial,” allowing a critical deadline to expire: the 100 day deadline in Fowler v. Superior Court

(1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 215 at page 218, thus losing access to vital police radio and computer

messages. As of June 30, 2017, Counsel has filed no discovery requests, filed no discovery motions

under Brady-Brown, made one insignificant Pitchess motions, made no Murgia-Baluyut motions, made no preparations for a jury trial, made no preparations for a Wheeler-Harris challenge to the jury pool, (anticipating a jury trial waiver): he should act now before time runs out.

Time remains to investigate the health or disabilities or life history of his client, toward a

necessity defense and any possible factors in mitigation of sentence, to advance or facilitate or

implement a defense. There is time to use an investigator; file motions to get an investigator. As of this motion the public defender stated, “We just have questions that we have to ask about

homelessness.”

The Calif. Supreme court in Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288 extended the full

constitutional protections used in felony cases to misdemeanor cases. That means ALL the

constitutional and procedural defenses are fully available to Defendant Wood. Except for

preliminary hearings and grand juries, a misdemeanor case runs the same way as a felony, but with lower liberty risk to the defendant. Any competent attorney should be familiar with Mills v.

Municipal Court. Mills is the third part of the Boykin-Tahl-Mills sequence.

-Nancy

RAJ SINGH, a short story by Nancy Wood 

This case is oddly reminiscent of the Raj Singh murder case, all about ghosts. literally and figuratively. I won that case, attached is an illustration from another case that I won; against the Salvation Army: A David and Goliath case like this one. 

 

The Maharajah Singjh and his descendants ran India up until modern times, he was known as The Lyon of Punjab; for obvious reasons considered to be the fiercest person in history. During the Great Depression a direct descendant of the Lyon of Punjab fell in love with an American diamond dealer visiting the Kohinoor diamond mines, the happy couple returned to America, where he died, at the ripe old age of 93, she insisted that she should be thrown onto his funeral pyre, which we don't have here: Some of her relatives tried to persuade her to persevere; outliving one's spouse is a dignity here that is well respected.

The Maharani wasted away, her relatives decided to sell her husband's diamond empire to pay for her maintenance in the style to which she was accustomed. Several million dollars later they came up short and dismissed the 24/7 nursing staff; the Maharani's days were numbered: Her family sought to hire a portrait artist to immortalize her, but, the price was too high. Fortunately the government had recently established a 'works program / art colony,' there individuals could commission masterpieces paid for by 'the public.' It was glorious; palatial, like the San Francisco Embarcadero, housing hundred of artists; studios, juried shows, galleries, museums, bronze foundries: If you were a working artist with patronage, you got in, but there was just one difference, your patrons were no longer art collectors, wealthy connoisseurs, and the rich and famous, now, you were expected to immortalize the 'public.' People from all walks of life would come to sit for a portrait, people with no knowledge of the hierarchy of art, generally speaking, with no knowledge at all, and who pretty much did not care, nor did they appreciate what you were able to accomplish: 'The poor and huddled masses' came to be entertained for free. An occasional newly educated intellectual took a peek; a common man, enthralled with the four freedoms, those hopes for democracy were dashed by McCarthy, and group think, and populism prevailed.

At first the Public Portrait Office blossomed, the ground floors were full of sumptuous art supply 'stores' where Windsor Newton oil paints, at forty dollars for a smidgen of Cadmium Red, now became 'supplied' along with a cornucopia of canvases, at tax payer expense. Fabriano Ingres paper, at eight dollars per sheet, was dolled out like butcher paper on hundred foot roles, gratis. Artists strolled the great halls and studios with satchels of supplies, carrying archival sketchbooks, floating along like ghosts, with pallet bouquets of Block Colors and Windsor Newton paints where Grumbacker used to be. They would have unselfconsciously received kings, but because their patrons were now simple people without knowledge, the artists never bothered to produce anything: Artists are not about their subjects, true enough, but art is about competition for patronage; if there is no need to compete for patrons, there is no art.

The artists had started out as Working Artist, accepting every prospect with religious zeal, filling the galleries with sketches and portraits, producing masterpieces for the poor, who were not particularly elevated by the experience. Most of the poor were skeptics who arrived with a suspicious frame of reference, consisting of ignorance and a desire to be depicted as royalty, Chiaroscuro on black velvet of course.

By the time that real royalty showed up the artists were dumbed down and indifferent; The Maharani of Punjab was met with the same begrudging tolerance that all of the other 'patrons' were shown; condescending artists walked around with a superior air, carrying empty sketch books; there was never any work in them, not for years. Superiority came from being paid to do as little work as possible, Which left a lot of time for pontificating on the promenade, shopping, dining, and in general living well, and keeping coiffed. More and more people came, apparently to listen to personalized speeches. The artists focused on themselves and on each other, they remained competitive but not over who would get the most prestigious commissions, rather, over who would do the least amount of work, and deliver the best bullshit.

The Maharani was wheeled in on a hospital bed, there wasn't much time, she bemoaned the lack of a funeral pyre relentlessly, her relatives explained that they loved her and wanted her few remaining days to be filled with courtiers preserving her for posterity, in portraits. Her attendants were gone, her family were in debt, there was only one relative with time enough to oversee the project: The youngest grandson made it his duty to be there, everyday, and every night. The artists talked and walked, walked and talked, and then she died, in her sleep; the youngest grandson arose and locked all of the doors and entrances, he climbed out of a window and set the art palace on fire, granting his grandmother's wish to be burned on a pyre. All of the artists and all of their work, of which there was none, were lost in the fire.

Because the artists died young they all became very famous, for their work done before the 'Public Portrait Office.' consumed them.

The People v. Nancy Wood, CASE NO. 17CM05470 Case No. 17CM05718