Thursday, May 18, 2017

I spent all day working on the brief for the case I have against Fountain Valley Captain Mike Simko tomorrow, Friday May 19, 2017, and when I got to Kinko's I realized I did not have enough money to print it out, the clerk looked at me and asked, "How much have you got?" I had seven dollars, she said, "Don't worry I can keep it under that." It actually cost twice that, she charged me half of what she could have. Nice! I can't figure out why blogspot won't copy the art and photos into this entry, I'll have to add them later (because life is always just exactly that complicated).
Worse, the defendant turned to the cop sitting next to him and announced that he was going to get a continuance by asking for a judge instead of a pro tem, because pro tems are lawyers and lawyers do not like cops, the bailiff assigned the case to commissioner Luege, a lawyer, tee hee. whose court I have prevailed in on exactly the same issues, twice!
Worse yet, after the case was continued I stopped by SAPD Internal Affairs to find out how the investigation in Santa Ana is going, against the perpetrators of the recent serial unlawful arrests of Sunday April 23rd and 30th, 2017.


The IA investigator appeared to be stoned out of his mind, he kept saying thing like, 'what if one hundred people showed up at the Market, like Nancy, to stand around!' I wanted to ask him if he has considered reducing his intake of brownies, because, it does not seem to me that a serious minded person would imagine that the elected official who authored Aggravated Trespass had in mind to prevent one hundred of me from showing up at a Market, in fact, as I had already told the investigator, Aggravated Trespass is the CPC that was written to deter stalkers, people who threaten violence and return to follow through on that threat. I said, "Could you stick to the facts and refrain from exaggerated analogies?" Apparently not, so, I trumped him by asking him what would happen if his officers accused me of murder and I said, fuck you, I am not a murderer, would that be taken into consideration or would they just shirk any investigation at all, the way they had done when they forced the Landhousing security guard, Mr. Corona, to sign the Citizen Arrest form? The investigator said that he had reports from Landhousing Security that I had panhandled, I asked, 'Then why didn't they arrest me for that?" IA Officer Pigs Ass replied, 'Because they arrested you for trespassing." It was just that exasperating, for the duration of the interview; he kept talking to me in a demeaning Mr. Rogers voice, as if trying to reason with a child, and he seemed to be content to have been fed a load of crap by his officers. Although he looked horrified as I was leaving, but that probably had to do with my homeless ambiance, rather than with an assessment of his dirt-bags-in-blue.

NANCY WOOD
517 W. Struck Street
Orange, CA 92867,
nancywoodemail @ email.com
PLAINTIFF



ORANGE COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURT
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92702


NANCY WOOD                   )                                                                                  Case No. 00898425-SCSCCJC
Plaintiff                                   )
vs.                                             )
CAPTAIN MIKE SIMKO    )                                                                                   DATE: June 23, 2017
Defendant                             )                                                                                   TIME: 8:30 A.M.
                                 )                                                                                   HON: Carmen R. Luege
                                 )                                                                                   COURTROOM: C 61, 3rd FLOOR



                                                              
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR
HARASSMENT; DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER:
California Civil Code section 45, EXHIBITS
and MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

TO ALL PARTIES:
THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the above date, time, and place, PLAINTIFF NANCY WOOD, WILL MOVE, AND HEREBY DOES MOVE that this Honorable Court consider Plaintiff's CLAIM FOR harassment; resulting in DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER: And, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE to Superior Court:
Plaintiff brings this action against Captain Mile Simko, alledging that Defendant authored, issued, and enforced an unwritten personal policy as described herein to Harass Plaintiff resulting in Malicious Defamation of Plaintiff's character in his capacity as a private citizen acting without regard for color of the statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the State of California, City of Fountain Valley, and the Fountain Valley Police Department. Plaintiff alleges DEFENDANT, CAPTAIN MIKE SIMKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, at all times material to this claim, without benefit of immunity, acted toward Plaintiff with insubordination to authority, in total disregard for the requirements of his office; an act of Official Oppression, a misdemeanor.
This motion is based upon this notice, this motion, these points and authorities, and upon the entire record in this action, and upon such evidence and argument as the court may receive when the motion is heard.
    ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
    Oral argument is requested for this motion, estimated at two (2) minutes. Plaintiff motions for a change of venue in order to bring this action against additional defendant; The City of Fountain Valley.
    Defendant Simko appeared in this court on May 19, 2017, with Monique Castruita, City of Fountain Valley Claims Adjuster, appearing for the City of Fountain Valley: Defendant Simko stated, “I'm asking for a judge because lawyers don't like police officers:” The case was reassigned to Commissioner Luege, a lawyer; Small Claims court does not provide judges.

PLAINTIFF SUES DEFENDANT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
At all times material to this case Defendant, enacted de facto policies practices and customs that were a direct and proximate cause of Harassment, and Deprivation of Constitutional Rights alleged herein, resulting in a violation of California Civil Code 45: Defamation of Character. Defendant Simko wrongfully, unlawfully, and without any warrant or other legal process or reasonable duty under authority of law directed and authorized Harassment that was highly offensive to a person of average sensibilities and intentionally designed to cause harm to Plaiantiff's reputation and personal integrity, and did cause harm:
Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer from mental distress, humiliation, embarrassment, fear, and defamation of her character and reputation, pursuant to California Civil Code section 45, having been exposed to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...." That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Nancy Wood, has been damaged in the sum of $2,500.00, and exemplary damages in the punitive amount to be determined by the court, as well as court costs to be determined by the court.
    HARASSMENT
    Plaintiff alleges that she was unlawfully harassed in violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be secure in her person, against unreasonable seizures, and continues to be harassed, in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures: On December 9, 2016, in this honorable court, Officer Jesse Hughes offered into evidence a statement authored by Defendant Simko, signed by Chief Llorens, from Defendant Simko stating that Officer Hughes purpose was, and continues to be to force Plaintiff to leave (Fountain Valley) under circumstances deprecative of her civil rights. “...at no time did Officer Hughes indicate that you were not free to leave...on the contrary that was his direction to you...”
    Wood is a model ciitizen: The intent to roust Wood from public places has no basis in violation of law, as proved in this court, (Nancy Wood v. The Salvation Army: Carmen Martinez Case No. 30-2016-00867382-SCSCCJC) December 8, 2016, subsequently officers cover their name badges to avoid prosecution.

          Plaintiff is continually harassed in a manner defamatory to her character , throughout Fountain Valley, in the absence of a crime or law enforcement purpose, by patrol officers acting in accordance with the personal edicts and unwritten policies of Captain Mike Simko (see Exhibits herein).

          Harassment is defined as follows:


Code of Civil Procedure - CCP

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.
 Captain Simkp's personal edicts have the force of law because patrol officers accept the validity of personal policy decisions enacted by their superiors. Defendant Simko, in disregard for position or procedure, enabled harassment resulting in Malicious Defamation of Plaintiff's Character. In the absence of proper procedure, supplanted by Defandant's personal edicts, the police effectively have the sovereign authority to threaten with harm individuals who are unresponsive to spurious demands, thereby extracting habitual obeisance rather than civil obedience.
When officials act in disregard for proper procedure, the force of law is negated, authority becomes meaningless; power rests with officials who are above the law: producing police who are armed sovereigns acting as a ‘gang’ like fraternity, in abuse of authority under color of law; denying Constitutional rights to the disenfranchised, in favor of extortion; demanding money under threat of incarceration. A society devoid of primary rules of obligation and duty, nullified by lack of adherence, is destined toward a fascist era, indicated by an unstable preliminary system of separate standards where doubt exists as to what the rules are and as to the precise scope of given rules from the officials whose declarations are authoritative; habitual obeisance becomes obligatory: Fascism is endorsed when the objective of the patrol officers is to extract kick-backs from Merchants who enlist racketeers to perpetrate crimes against their customers (see Exhibits herein).
    REQUEST FOR RELIEF / RECOVERY OF DAMAGES / CHANGE OF VENUE
    This is a Claim for Damages in the amount of $2,500.
    Fountain Valley Police Deparntment Internal Affairs Captian Mike Simko, acting in his individual capactiy, with insubordination, in an outrageous mockery of authority under color of law, authored a conspiratorial unofficial policy to harass and defame Plaintiff Nancy Wood with arrest threats in the absence of a crime, at the Albertson's strp mall, at Mile Square Park, and throughout the city of Frountain Valley where she recieves portrait customers, and where the unwritten vioative policy, of harassing obsercers to police perpetrated kick-back rackets, continues to be implemented by patrol officers.
    Escalating harassment and defamation, instigated by Defendant Simko, are grounds for a change of venue in this action in order to bring this action against additional defendants the City of Fountain Valley Police; The Fountain Valley Polce Department, at the Superior Court level: This is a request for a change of jurisdiction to Superior Court.

PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY ALLEGES
That the within action arises pursuant to California Civil Code section 45: A change of venue to the jurisdiction of the SUPERIOR COURT is invoked, as hereinafter more fully appears at this SMALL CLAIMS COURT hearing requesting a change of venue.
This action has been commenced within one year of the accrual of ongoing causes of action.
Defendant Simko was and is at all times material to this case, acting toward Plaintiff with total disregard for the requirements of his office, without benefit of immunity, in his capacity as a private citizen in disregard for color of the statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the State of California, City of Fountain Valley, and the Fountain Valley Police Department, in so doing has committed Official Oppression, a misdemeanor.

Plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of liberty without Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment, which “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, 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, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men (and women shoppers)." Meyer v Nebraska (1923) -Justice McReynolds.
    Plaintiff was deprived of her First Amendment right of Assembly, on threat of arrest, on numerous occasions, in the absence of a violation of law and in violation of the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...nor be deprived of...liberty...without due process of law.” Captain Mike Simko, acting as judge and jury; indorsed Officer Hughs' pronouncment that Wood is guilty of violating a Salvation Army Store Policy that does not exist and of a violent crime that never took place, California Penal Code section 602 (t): Aggravated Trespass, a felony.
    Claim Rejection:
    Defendant Simko, on other and ongoing occasions ritterating accusations via various patrol officers, in the absence of due process: Defendant has and continues to orchestrate defamation with forethought of malice. In spite of the fact that as far back as February 4, 2016, the FVPD dispatcher guaranteed that the ongoing campaign of police harassment at the Albertson's strip mall, would stop. The harassment continues to the present.
    Transcript of Tape Recording 160204_1044;
    FOUNTAIN VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT DESK OFFICER, FEBRUARY 4, 2016:
    NANCY WOOD: I wonder if I could speak to a watch commander....Andro Dizon, (manager of the Salvation Army Family Store) seems to be convinced that he can have me arrested. So, when the police officer comes out and he (Andro Dizon) makes up another story, maybe about guns and knives, what can I do? (see EXHIBIT I: Transcript of Tape Recording 160120_0983, Thumb-Drive Attached UNLAWFUL DETENTION NARRATIVE, January 20, 2016, 11:00 A.M.)
    DESK OFFICER: I have the incident (Unlawful Detention of January 20, 2016) in front of me on the screen. No one has called us today, to that location.
    NANCY WOOD: I haven't been to his store. I'm at Albertson's, that's the grocery store next door.
    DESK OFFICER: He doesn't have any reason to...
    NANCY WOOD: I didn't think so, and I did make a claim with the City, because, the police officer (Jesse Hughes), I think that he just probably wanted to get out of there, but, he made an accusation that I was in violation of 602 (t) subsection (1) and (2) (felony trespass)
    DESK OFFICER: Trespassing?
    NANCY WOOD: So I made a Claim to the City because you can't accuse someone of perpetrating a felony, on that (code section) if they have never even been convicted of anything.
    California Penal Code section 602: Trespass 
      (t) (1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon
     belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed '
    by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and
     upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's
     agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing 
    or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.
(2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the 
    particular private property.
    NANCY WOOD: So, I did that, and I made an Internal Affairs Complaint about it just so that the officer won't do that , so casually, to the next person, and at this point I'm just waiting to go to court on a Small Claims defamation case, in the mean time your advice is very sound, I just won't go in the Store. But the thing is that if he (Andro Dizon) sees me anywhere at the mall, and of course I have a lot of friends in Fountain Valley, I've been here for twenty years, I run into people all of the time and I'm talking to friends, and he uses that as an excuse to tell security to call the police
    DESK OFFICER: Call us first before he does and we will send an officer out to arrest him (Andro Dizon), for harassing you.
    NANCY WOOD: Do What?
    DESK OFFICE: Call us first. It sounds like security is on your side.
    NANCY WOOD: Yes. That's good advice OK., that is what I will do then. Thank you for your patients.


    HISTORY
    Wood filed in Small Claims Court (00852878-SCSCCJC) and won against the Salvation Army for Malicious Defamation; CCC section 45, on January 6, 2017. (See Judicial Decision attached.)

    Wood filed against FVPD Officer Jesse Hughes (30-201600867382-SCSCCJC) and The City of Fountain Valley. City Claims Adjuster Monique Castruita, appeared for the City of Fountain Valley (PO Box 25180, Santa Ana, Ca., 92799) with Officer Jesse Hughes (10200 Slater Ave., Fountain Valley, Ca., 92708, defended, stated, “We were exonerated by Internal Affairs Captain Mike Simko.” The case was heard on December 8, 2016. Wood was not awarded damages. Commissioner Leudge did not enter a decision, rather opted to check the 'no damages awarded' box on the Small Claims court form. The harassment continues: The officers have adopted the conduct violation of covering their name badges and refusing to identify themselves, to avoid prosecution; per Defendant's personal policy.

    NO DEFENSE
Internal Affairs Captain Mike Simko received several complaints from Plaintiff Wood requesting that the unlawful harassment be addressed, those complaints were ignored (see Exhibits herein)

MISCONDUCT
FOUNTAIN VALLEY POLICE OFFICER REFUSING TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF:
OBSCURES HIS NAME TAG (UNDER HIS RIGHT HAND) WHILE UNLAWFULLY
HARASSING WOOD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPTAIN SIMKP'S UNOFFICIAL POLICY
OF ENDORSING POLICE MISCONDUCT.


    DEFAMATION
    Fountain Valley Internal Affairs Department Captain, Mike Simko, is without a defense of interest in free speech or justification where the communication is about a matter of public concern. Defendants' right to Freedom of Speech and public protection does not tip the balance of Nancy Wood’s right to protect her good name. Captain Simko's endorsement of harassment is improper and runs afoul of Defamation law Civil Code section 45.
    Defamatory statements included any the following:
    A communication that imputes a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony;
    A communication that exposes a person to hatred;
    A communication that reflects negatively on a person’s character, morality, or integrity;
    A communication that impairs a person’s financial well-being;
    A communication that suggests that a person suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with that person.
    MALICE
    The derogatory mischaracterization of Nancy Wood as a potential arrestee is not an honest mistake; it was payback, by racketeer cop, Officer Jesse Hughes; instigated by Defendant Simko, published with actual malice and intent to do harm: Statements were and continue to be made knowing that they are not true, with reckless disregard for whether they are true or not, as a reprisal, because Wood complained about criminal activity, and had made helpful comments, to the Fountain Valley Police Department Fraud, and Code Enforcement Divisions (see Exhibits herein.)

    DAMAGE
    The ongoing harassment, dating as far back as January 20, 2016, (see Exhibit I) has resulted in the loss of portrait customers; Nancy Wood is now publicly derided where she draws, and throughout the art community, where she was formerly well received for past decades, as a competitor for highly sought after portrait commissions and she has been the target of hate mail from angry associates of the perpetrators of the defamation at issue. Plaintiff has experienced derision by people who are persuaded that she is an undesirable. This is harmful and injurious, which proves libel and slander. Plaintiff continues to be harassed with arrest threats. The Officers entourage of 'cooperatives' stalk her into Mall stores, with disparaging comments, and conjure crimes which they attribute to her:
    E-MAIL COMPLAINT TO SAVATION ARMY CORPORATE OFFICES, January14,2016:
    Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 8:45 PM, From: "nancy wood" <NancyWood @ email.com> 
To:OrangeCounty@usw.salvationarmy.org, 
Subject: Racketeers of the FV store:





Dear Carmen (Martinez), …
...I asked the manager, (Andro Dizon), why he is wheeling and dealing with junkies...While the junkies are in 
    the store I don't buy anything, because, where you see one there are several accomplices who you don't see, 
    stealing, and casing customers. Another could be in the parking lot taking notes on who is driving what car,
     holding what purse, or headed to what destination. I stay off of their radar; they have no idea that I am on
     to them... But apparently the new manager (Dizon) likes the 'insider boys club,' con that they are running 
    on him. Being new, it probably makes him feel good...   -Nancy 
RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE
    Public servants are free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something beneficial in the public interest, but the ongoing defamatory harassment, Unlawful Detention, and arrest threats, perpetrated in spite of observation and knowing Wood to be a law abiding citizen are malicious, having no truth in reality, and in the absence of a crime: Wood, a mall portrait artist, has been a known member of the community for decades; there is nothing that would justify an assessment so completely out of character as to attribute criminality to Wood.
    The threat of an unlawful arrest is a deliberate sabotage that sets the public interest on shaky ground: The Officers' defamatory harassment stems from the Fountain Valley Police Department's culture of undermining the public in order to justify their budget, and to enrich the patrol officers with kick-backs from criminal racketeers, In a manner both opportunistic and predatious, with the objective of profiting by harassing, detaining, and apprehending the victim rather than the perpetrator, toward an arrest in the absence of a crime.
    The officers' misconduct exemplifies reckless behavior and indifference to the public interest, under an unofficial policy that Captain Mike Simko authored and endorses.

        IMMUNITY PRECLUDED

    Officers continually reiterate the threat of arrest, knowing full well that no criteria are met for an arrest is an egregious abuse of authority under color of law, in the form of harassment and intimidation intended to criminalize Wood to the public and cause humiliation, and damage to her reputation, in a bad faith attempt to deprive Plaintiff of due process rights, toward unjustly subjugating Plaintiff to the judicial process.
    Captain Mike Simko is not protected from liability in a defamation action based on position or status. Absolute privileges, considered immunities, do not extend to the City, the Police Department, nor Captain Simko: Defendant Simko is not shielded from liability.
    Absolute privileges apply only to the following proceedings and circumstances:
    (1)  judicial proceedings
    (2) legislative proceedings
    (3) some executive statements and publications
    (4) publications between spouses
    (5) publications required by law
    Perjured Police Events Sheets and Citizen Arrest forms, are not publications 'required by law.'
    In fact, the officers who authored reports and illicited Citizen Arrest forms have participated in Police Misconduct in an act of Official Oppression instigated and endorsed by Defendant Simko:
    In general "Official Misconduct" is an intentional or knowing violation of a law committed by a public servant while acting in an official capacity as a public servant. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit:
    1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or
    2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
    Official Misconduct is usually a Class A Misdemeanor, as an 'offense against public administration' and an 'abuse of office.'
    Laws relating to a public servant's office or “employment" means a law that specifically applies to a person acting in the capacity of a public servant and that directly or indirectly:
    (A) imposes a duty on the public servant; or
    (B) governs the conduct of the public servant.
    (2) "Misuse" means to deal with property contrary to:
    (A) an agreement under which the public servant holds the property;
    (B) a contract of employment or oath of office of a public servant.

    Generally, with the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense of Abuse of Authority.

    Similarly, 'abuse of official capacity,' regards defrauding the public
    (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment.
    OFFICIAL OPPRESSION is at issue if:
    (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment
    (1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
    (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful...
MALL CRIME BOSS, SALVATION ARMY STORE CASHIER ALICE (right), AND protege (center)

    Nancy Wood is a 65 year old portrait artist who has worked in public places for forty years. As a victim of Failure to Protect, Harassment, and Malicious Defamation of Character, perpetrated by Captain Simko, Wood's reputation and ability to earn a livelihood have been severely damaged: Wood has no history of convictions, nor of associations with criminals, or any history on which such aspersions could be based. Wood's work is in the Rothschild’s private collection, accessed by art historians for inclusion in art texts. (see Art Exhibits).
    Statement of Nancy Wood: “People who do civil rights work have to be impeccable, because good moral character is so pivotal to upholding the standard that we ask the court to uphold. I illustrate my legal work, to further demonstrate integrity and forthrightness: What court is going to have any confidence in a felon's cartoons? Without an unassailable character and a record of no convictions to prove it, my work would be viewed as the jail wall gibberish, of one more conniving criminal.”
    Nancy Wood brings this action because of the ongoing harassment she is subjected to at the Albertson's strip mall, at Mile Square Park, and throughout Fountain Valley; serious and damaging misconduct with Captain Mike Simko's endorsement: such as the unlawful detention described herein, perpetrated by FVPD Officer Jesse Hughes, at which no investigation was undertaken, exonerating evidence thereby being destroyed: Cause, however illegitimate, was manufactured by Officer Hughes, after the fact of a baseless 911 call. Defamatory assertions and accounts were published as publicly accessible events sheets, daily logs, and employee reports describing Wood, a portrait artist, as a gangster Moll and danger to the community in which she works. Store manager Andro Dizon's fabrications and perjured statements to Officer Hughes, include a twisted machination involving weapons threats, with no basis in fact and no corroborating documentation, which, Officer Hughes reiterated, publicly, at the crowded strip mall, “caused him (Andro Dizon) to be in fear for his safety (see Exhibit I).”
    A simple investigation would have proved that the accusation was a baseless confabulation, as was proved in this court, (Nancy Wood v. The Salvation Army: Carmen Martinez Case No. 30-2016-00867382-SCSCCJC) had the Officer bothered to investigate: Constructing a 'Damsel in Distress,' deception; made Andro Dizon the victim of a dangerous gang Moll, rather than the insufferable drunk about whom Wood had complained, to Salvation Army Store district manager Carmen Martinez.
    Transcript of Tape Recording, excerpted to Martinez, in attachement
    to E-MAIL TO CARMEN MARTINEZ, JANUARY 30, 2016:
    To: OrangeCounty @ usw.salvationarmy.org
    (Dear Carmen) Please require that your employees stop harassing me (third request): On January 30, 2016, your cashier told Margie, (my shopping companion) and another shopper, who were at your Store register, at 9:30AM, that I was arrested for stealing and was kicked out of your store as a result:
    MARGIE: Well they said that they had to get rid of you because you are complaining to Carmen all of the time.
    WOOD: Well, this is a lawsuit isn't it? I mean I am suing her. Did she think I wouldn't say anything?... In their opinion, I'm a danger, because I complain about them (Dizon, Martinez, Alice and Tammy) ... Carmen said that she canceled my Yelp page. (internet service for customer complaints). She must be afraid that I will post a complaint. They want to arrest me to shut me up for complaining about criminal activity, stuff like that. ...
    DEFINITION OF DEFAMATION
    A communication is defamatory "if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower (her) in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with (her)." (see Civil Code section 45: Defamation of Character).
    Because of Defendant Simko's deliberate indifference to and disregard for the law, and alienation of Plaintiff's rights; toward furthering his personal policy of allowing the persecution of witnesses to police perpetrated rackets, and kick-back crimes in areas open to the public, by insuring that observers are threatened with arrest and subjected to prosecution in the absence of a crime: Patrol officers act in defiance of previously reliable information including factual innocents at the scene, disregarding foreknowledge of Plaintiff's clean record, conjuring factual quilt in order to have Plaintiff Wood falsely arrested, intended and designed to result in prosecution and conviction of Plaintiff, especially calculated to violate Plaintiff’s constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. As a direct result Plaintiff was defamed and deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution; Defendant Simkp acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's rights, causing harm, suffering, humiliation, indignities, anguish, and damages, consistent with a violation of California Civil Code section 45: Defamation of Character, exposing Wood to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...."
    Subsequently Wood has been subject to multiple varying abuses, orchestrated by Defendant, and to malicious defamation in ongoing attempts to arrest Wood: Patrol officer 'cooperatives' continue to publicly impugn Wood with accusations, at the behest of Captain Simko.
    CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
    Any place that is open to the public, is the public thoroughfare, there, everyone on American soil is guaranteed the equal application of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms: Singling Wood out, for an unlawful retaliatory detention while threatening her with arrest, in violation of those freedoms, is an egregious abuse of authority, constituting Police Misconduct, and a violation of Wood's civil liberties, manifesting Malicious Defamation of Character
    False accusations, made during the unlawful detentions, are sufficiently malicious to constitute Malicious Defamation of Character: Defendant Simko having foreknowledge of Plaintiff's identity, history, and record of no convictions, assured that patrol officers knowingly, with forethought of malice, conspired to and did expose Plaintiff to harm: Officer Hughes stating in court that he was acting on Captain Simko's authority, intentionally advanced an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment to cover police crimes, and to force Plaintiff to leave town, amounting to unlawful conduct, at the busy strip mall where she works, shops, and meets with freinds. As well as throughout the community:
    CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE section 403-420.1 403. Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character...is guilty of a misdemeanor. 410. If a magistrate or officer...neglects to exercise the authority with which he is invested for suppressing the same and arresting the offenders, he is guilty of a misdemeanor.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF MALICIOUS MISINFORMATION
STATEMENT OF NANCY WOOD: “Everyone knows me now by that slanderous representation: I have no convictions, and no mental diagnosis, I have never done drugs, I don't drink: I do not qualify for disability or any other Mental Health Association or State mandated program, I have no criminal affiliations, but the picture that Officer Hughes painted of me, at the Store, and that other patrol officers continue to disparage me with, as involved with a pistol packing knife wielding gangster “friend named John,” (see Exhibit I) is impossible to dispel, because it draws a life threatening image. Officer Hughes and Monique Catruita testified in court, on December 8, 2016, that Internal Affairs Captain Mike Simko had sanctioned the outrageous behavior of officer Jesse Hughes.” Since the violative behavior is ongoing by officers who refuse to identify themselves I have concluded that they are acting at the behest of Captain Mike Simko.
Wood is not and has never been a candidate for arrest: Defendant Simko instigated the public disclosure of misinformation with malice, by orchestrating detentions, toward defamation by endorsing a malicious defamatory falsehoods with reckless disregard and knowledge of falsity, causing irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, integrity, personal freedom, and dignity, intentionally with foreknowledge that harm would result, beyond a foreseeable risk which a reasonable person would avoid, to substantial certainty in intent. No legitimate law enforcement purpose was served, in derogatory comments made during Unlawful Detentions, by demanding that Plaintiff relinquish her First Amendment rights of speech, assembly and travel.

LIABILITY NOT IMUNIZED
Plaintiff alleges that Captain Mike Simko is liable for the policy, custom, and practice of deliberate indifference to unlawful detentions by Fountain Valley police officers and a policy, custom, and practice of being deliberately indifferent to the violations at issue:. After Plaintiff's reputation was wrongfully and unlawfully destroyed, patrol officers and others further impugned Wood's character, by stalking her into various mall businesses for the purpose of casting aspersions and intentionally perpetrating slanderous lies impugning Wood's character. Attributing felonious criminal and anti-social behavior to Wood in the absence of any impropriety or violation of law:

RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH

    Wood met no criteria for the violation of CPC 602, perpetuated no crime, no law was broken and the police need not have responded to the 911 call:
    An investigation in the absence of a crime, should have ended the defamatory harassment and threat of arrest that Wood is continually subjected to, rather, at the behest of The Salvation Army, Officer Hughes insisted six times that Wood was a candidate for a felony trespass arrest; that she could and would be arrested and charged with a felony; depicting Wood as a criminal during the busy mall lunch hour, in verbose defamatory public statements, that are continually echoed by patrol officers at various ongoing encounters, throughout Fountain Valley, apparently for the purpose of anihilating Woods civil rights, and enforece Defendants unlawful edicts.
    The derogatory characterization of Nancy Wood, as a trespasser, who must be approached with caution, and arrested, due to a history of associations with armed criminals, (see Exhibit I) is not the result of an honest mistake, but rather was asserted with actual “malice and intent to do harm (CC 45).” The assertion was made knowing that it was not true, with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not, and in total disregard for the law, and was reitterated six times by the Offier who neglected to conduct an investigation to determine the varacity of the accusations. Similarly patrol officers continue to disparage Wood thoughout the community, with defamatory accusation entered into the permanent record, attributable to Defendant Simko.
    Under the common law rules of strict liability Defendant Simko is liable for defamation merely for publishing a false statement, even if not aware that the statement was false. First Amendment free speech issues and matters of public concern are not an exemption.
    An oral defamatory communication, comprised of false and derogatory statements, regarding Nancy Wood, published by The Fountain Valley Police Department, specifically Officer Hughes, and others, with the endoresement of Captain Simko, defamed Wood, in the absence of a crime; the derogatory statements are documented along with defamatory mischaracterizations, on tape, in Events Reports, Citizens Arrest Forms, and Police Logs, that are available to and accessed by the public. Officers continue, in violation of Wood's First Amendment Right of Assembly, religion, transit, and speech; to demand that Wood leave the premises under threat of arrest, without conducting an investigation to determine the facts.

    Aggravated Trespass (CPC section 602 (t) (1) and (2) is invoked if one makes a credible threat to physically injure someone and then within 30 days of the threat, actually comes to that commercial property without consent to seemingly carry out that threat. If one commits “Aggravated Trespass” and it is charged as a felony, one may face jail time for up to 16 months, (in some states 2 or 3 years) a conviction requires priors: Wood has no prior convictions at that location nor at any location and no criminal associations. Nor have any witness accounts, or previous reports, corroborate Defendants' defamatory accusation.
    The fact that WOOD HAD PEACEABLY ASSEMBLED ON THE PROPERTY with her friends; Rosabell Larson,1 Margie, and others, every Wednesday for three years, conversing as they made purchases: renders California Penal Code section 602 (K) Trespass, specifically, section (t) (1) and (2) Aggravated Trespass, moot, in light of Wood's lawful history, purpose, and conduct under Constitutionally protected Freedoms of Transit, Expression, and Assembly. First Amendment rights belong to everyone, citizens, and non-citizens, artists, observers, and particularly to shoppers:
    California Penal Code section 602: Trespass “...Subdivisions shall not apply to persons on the premises who are engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution.”
SHOPPERS, ROSABELL LARSON (*82 (714) 537-7937 AND NANCY WOOD





FOUNTAIN VALLEY POLICE OFFICER REFUSING TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF:
AND OBSCURING HIS NAME TAG (UNDER HIS RIGHT HAND)

UNLAWFUL DETENTIONS:
A pattern and unwritten Policy of Civil Rights violations
THREAT OF SPURIOUS FELONY ARREST: Officers respond to
911 'dozing-off' calls, from the Mall Starbucks, under the Fountain Valley unwritten Policy
to create, apply, and selectively enforce fascist edicts.


“REHABILITATED” SALVATION ARMY STORE EMPLOYEES
Crime boss / cashiers, drunk, demand that Mall merchants arrest observers.

Barefoot, John Powell, with manager Andro Dizon, shop-lifts and raids the Donation Box.

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL TRANG NGUYEN IS THREATENED WITH FELONY ARREST:
Mall Employees attack Nguyen for reporting health code violations at Starbucks.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT, MARCH 25, 2016
    Officer: FVPD Sworn Officer Zane
    Circumstances: Officer's response to baseless 911 call.
    Conduct Leading to Complaint: Failure to Protect, Unlawful Detention,
    Defamation of Character.
    CUSTOMER, TRANG NGUYEN, UNDER ATTACK BY MALL EMPLOYEES
    On March 25, 2016, at 11:50AM, health care professional Trang Nguyen, a regular customer, at the Salvation Army Store strip mall, noticed that the pre-packaged dairy product she had purchased moments before, on her Starbucks card, although not expired was about to explode.
    When she meekly asked to exchange it, she was threatened with felony arrest and directed to leave and not return by the responding officer: “I think this has gone bad, do you mind if I exchange it,” the clerk tossed it back at me yelling, “NO! It's not expired you drink it! There is nothing wrong with it, DRINK IT!”
    Mrs. Nguyen refused; he pelted her with, “Well then you have to leave, leave now, Get out!” Mrs. Nguyen proceeded to call the police; the employee proceeded to fly into a rage, “You threw that at me...GET OUT.” This vicious assault of Trang Nguyen, by a Starbucks employee and Starbucks manager; was met with failure to protect by responding FVPD Officers; and harassment by Protection Patrol Services: (see Tape recording of Disturbance of the Peace, 160325_1148.WMA, thumb-drive attached). Trang Nguyen mentioned that the Employees had lost/stolen her Starbucks card twice in the past, and had attempted to take it a third time; with several hundred dollars on it.
    CERTAINTY OF HARM
    Enabled by Defendant Simko, officers act maliciously and with full knowledge of consequences intentionally and purposefully toward certainly of harm. Patrol officers and their civilian cooperaties, publicly and egregiously defamed Plaintiff by issuing the false statement, that Wood is someone who “…will be arrested...” on a charge of felony Trespassing, having “caused (Dizon) to be in fear for is safety,” Defendant was aware from Plaintiff's assertions at the scene, and her record of no convictions, that Plaintiff had no history on which aspersions could be based, nor did she meet the criteria, of priors at that location, for the charge at issue. Yet Wood is frequently stopped and interrogated without cause by Fountain Valley patrol officers deliberately misrepresenting prerequisite criteria for a violation:
    Racketeer John Powell with Salvation Army Store manager Andro Dizon:


    As a disfavored observer to racketeering in the lucrative strip mall 'turf,' recently and as far back as Januray 20, 2016 (see Exhbit I), Wood was and continues to be threatened with arrest, by Officer Hughes, at the behest of the Salvation Army Family Store on January 20, 2016,(see evidence Exhibit i: verbatim transcript of tape recording 160120_0983, UNLAWFUL DETENTION NARRATIVE, JANUARY 20, 2016, 11:00 A.M. and on numerous ongoing occasions throughout the city of Fountain Valley.
    LIABILITY / FALSE ACCUSATIONS
    Plaintiff's well meaning critique communications regarding fraud and racketeering at the strip mall became the impetus and motive to target Wood, with retaliatory unlawful harassment that result in Defamation; and consequent mischaracterization of Wood as someone who consorts with armed criminals and who must answer to the police for criminal violations of law, such as would require a felony arrest and conviction, under Penal Code Section 602 (t) (1) (2): Aggravated Trespass.
    Wood's recordings, of the events -from which Dizon's confabulations sprang, and of encounters leading up to the Unlawful Detention- tell a very different story, of Wood's good citizenship (see Exhibits).
    FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY / AND INJURIOUS STATEMENTS
    A person who has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person who made the statement under Defamation law, California Civil Code section 45. Public servants, and private citizens are free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something beneficial in the public interest, but defamatory harassment and unlawful detention, with the endorsement of Defendant Simko perpetrated in spite of observation and knowing Wood to be a law abiding citizen are actionable.
    STATEMENT OF NANCY WOOD: “Drawing is lawful, it’s my primary source of income, I draw in public, if people like what I am doing they want to contribute, but now, people are afraid to approach me, I can’t make even a subsistence living, my survival is threatened. I have been here without incident for years, in daily contact with them, yet, they make it out to be, 'The Apprehension of Nancy Wood Dangerous Deranged Detainee. The police know that I don't have a record, they generate them!”
California Penal Code section 602 (t) (1) and (2) requires priors at that same location, Plaintiff had not and has never been convicted, of a crime, at any location, the relentless attempts to charge Wood with a felony is malicious. Wood continues to be disparaged and defamed by Fountain Valley police and their cooperatives.
CPC section 602: Trespass, has to be invoked in conjunction with a crime, for example: To prove that one is guilty of “trespass,” the prosecutor has to prove the facts or elements according to the following sub-sections:
  1. Penal Code Section 602(k) Entering onto another’s property to interfere with business.
  2. Penal Code Section 602(m) Entering onto another’s property with the intent to damage the property.
  3. Penal Code Section 602(o) Unlawfully occupying the property of another
  4. Penal Code Section 602(t) Refusing to leave the property of another upon the owner’s request. (This requires prior convictions at that location, according to sub-section 2)
  5. California Penal Code Section 602 (q): Refusing to leave a public building during those hours of the day or night when the building is regularly closed to the public after being asked to leave by someone employed there.
    Someone commits an act “willfully” when he or she does it willingly or on purpose.  Willfully Defined. Pen. Code, § 7(1); People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402].
    Wood is not a candidate for arrest under any subdivision of California Penal Code section 602: Trespass, having met none of the criteria for the charge, intentionally, negligently or at all. Patrol officers have seen no evidence of a creditable threat, of probable cause that Plaintiff has committed an offense, nor do the officers have any justification for harassing Plaintiff. There is no proof that Wood ever intended to interfere with commerce, with anyone or with anything, in the three years that she had been a regular valued customer, of the Salvation Army Family Store, nor is there proof that she cultivates gangster “friends,” or boasts violence. There is no evidence to indicate that she engages in unlawful behavior at Mile Square Park, or at any of the locations where she is routinely accosted by patrol officers without cause. Had Officers made an investigation, by pulling up Woods history, immediately available on their squad car computer, the Officers would have ended the harassment; instead the officers violate Wood's First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Assembly, Transit, Speech and Religious Freedom; threatening Wood with a felony arrest: Creating a felony image of Wood, to shoppers, employees, and passers by; violating Wood's rights, not once but many times, by inferring that she can't return to the Mall, at all, let alone to the Store, Park and other public places; stating that she will be arrested when she does, Intimating that it all hinges on Wood's lack of protected status, in fact, a moot point. Officer Hughes, for example, instructed Dizon to call him back; stating that Wood “will” be arrested on a felony violation of CPC section 602 (t) (1) and (2) Aggravated Trespass.
    see EXHIBIT I: Transcript of Tape Recording 160120_0983, Thumb-Drive Attached
    UNLAWFUL DETENTION NARRATIVE, January 20, 2016. 11:00 A.M:
    OFFICER HUGHES: It sounds like he is asking you to leave because he is fearful for his safety, and that's a good enough reason for me. .. like I said, they have the right to refuse service. As long as they are not discriminating against you for any specific thing...
    OFFICER HUGHES: OK. You will be arrested if you try to go back inside of the store.
    ANDRO DIZON: (to Wood) Don't Come Back!
    OFFICER HUGHES: (to Andro Dizon) Alright. Call us back if you call us back we will arrest her.

    FUTURE ARTISTS WITH TIBETAN BUDDHIST ART TEACHER: PLAINTIFF NANCY WOOD

    Defendant has elected to engage in lawless behavior, and is at fault for failure to live up to supervisorial duty, resulting in loss of liberty: Plaintiff having been unlawfully detained, and deprived of her reputation: Captain Simko, is liable for his subordinate's conduct. Defendant foresaw that the patrol officers had the deliberate intention of Unlawful Detention and False Arrest; when he negated Wood's attempts to address racketeering by Store employees and their appendage gangs, which she reported to Captain Simko,, as long ago as 2015, and which she continues to document. He did not respond, subjecting Wood to Malicious Defamation of Character while Wood engaged in Constitutionally protected freedoms, on January 20, 2016; and there after, he was aware that no prior convictions existed, and no criteria were met for arrest, Defendant conspired to retaliate against and punish Plaintiff for her complaints, thus supporting racketeering, by Salvation Army Store employees, Starucks employees, Albertson's employees, and Park employees and others, who provide kick-backs to patrol officers.
    Andro Dizon unlawfully dialed 911 in the absence of a crime, Officer Hughes responded based on unsubstantiated conjecture, which Andro Dizon intimated to police and to bystanders to be one of many reported recent terrorist threat “incidents,” but, in fact, no threats were reported at all. Andro Dizon should, for his perjured statement to police, have faced arrest, and a fine, for a violation of CPC 148.5, the California law against making a false report of a misdemeanor or a felony.
    see EXHIBIT I: Transcript of Tape Recording 160120_0983,
    UNLAWFUL DETENTION NARRATIVE, January 20, 2016. 11:00 A.M:
    ANDRO DIZON: ...there have been some previous incidents...recent incidents...(in which) she said to me, I have this friend that owns a GUN...and he has a knife and he won't hesitate to use it, so I wouldn't want to be who you are.”
    Subsequent 911 calls, to present, lack any basis in fact.
    INTENT TO HARM
    Captain Simko can and should be charged for attempting to provoke an arrest in the absence of a crime, as a reprisal, equating to a disturbance of the peace per CPC section 415.
    PENAL CODE SECTION 403-420.1: 403. Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character..., is guilty of a misdemeanor. 410. If (an) officer… neglects to… exercise the authority with which he is invested for suppressing the same and arresting the offenders, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Refusal to respond to a disturbance of the peace is the only misdemeanor that police officers are not immune from.)
    NO BASIS IN TRUTH
The Unlawful Detentions continue to take place in a malicious ruse to impeach Wood's credibility as a disfavored observer to police endorsed rackets, to paint Wood as an obtrusive violent repeat offender; a trespassing bag-lady in a “blanket” who boasts pistol packing knife wielding friends, and who issues terrorist threats: (see Exhibit I): Aspersions that have no basis in truth.
    In their mind's eye the public now see the police hauling Wood off in hand cuffs; a crazy bag-lady in a “blanket” carted off to a padded cell, arrested as if she is a dangerous racketeer, the very sort of person that the Officer appears to be; the reality of the day's events have left Wood, a peace loving portrait artist, with an irreparably damaged reputation.
    Wood has and will continue to suffer from mental distress, humiliation, embarrassment, fear, and defamation of her character and reputation, as a result of unlawful detentions, having been exposed to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...." pursuant to California Civil Code section 45, all to her:
    Damage in the sum of $2,500.00: Random sampling of days receipts attached.
Defendant contrived to harass Wood with threats of arrest, toward defaming her character, because it suit his purpose of banishing Wood on behalf of racketeers.


PUBLIC HUMILIATION
Defendants’ malicious depiction of Plaintiff as a candidate for arrest, has caused Plaintiff to be detained without cause, and deprived of her reputation.
Shoppers were led to mistakenly believe, that Nancy Wood is part of a dangerous criminal element, this belief, so long as it is reasonable, is sufficient to constitute defamation of Nancy Wood. Because Nancy Wood is unlawfully detained by officers, in public places; there is no mistaking the public humiliation that Wood is subjected to. There is no grain of truth to the ongoing characterization of Wood as a menacing gangster Molly who boasts association with pistol packing gun toting criminals.
    Conspiratorial actions of Defendant and the officers who he exonerated paint Wood as an undesirable element in the community, a menace, such as would require arrest, on the charge of Aggravated Trespass, a felony. In their mind's eye the public now see the police hauling Wood off in hand cuffs, at the behest of Store managers; and Park officials, carted off, to a padded cell; fulfilling the purpose of the harassment; to depict the police arresting Wood as if she is a violent repeat offender: What the public does not see is the smirking face of Captain Simko, when the reality of the day's events have left Wood, a model senior citizen having no history on which a charge could be based, with an irreparably damaged reputation.
By means of these wholly unfounded aspersions, Defendant directly caused Plaintiff’s character to be destroyed. These actions deprived Plaintiff of her reputation the use of which is a necessity to her survival and caused Plaintiff to have diminished capacity to earn a livelihood, she is now alienated and ostracized in the community where she was previously welcomed and held in high esteem. Subjecting Plaintiff to uncertainty, to regain her professional status and maintain her life, after the ongoing campaign of character assassination to impugn Wood's credibility, in numerous daily stalking incidents, instigated and endorsed by Defendant Simko. Wood continues to be plagued, after January 20, 2016, where Wood meets with friends for coffee, at the adjacent Starbucks, where she buys groceries at Albertson's, and when she frequents the Park, and elsewhere: Wood has requested that the ongoing harassment be addressed by various business owner, and managers, to no avail:
    EMAIL TO CARMEN MARTINEZ, January 30, 2016:
    From: "nancy wood" <NancyWood @email.com>
    To: OrangeCounty @ usw.salvationarmy.org
    Dear Carmen (Martinez) … Please require that your employees stop harassing me.
    Captain Simko engaged in grievous and bizarre harassment in an extreme and outrageous willful and wanton destruction of Wood's reputation, with ongoing detentions at a parking lot identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as having a history of conversion to unlawful criminal operations conducted by specific Fountain Valley police officers for personal gain at the expense of public safety). Plaintiff was and is regularly harassed by officers at the location, and others, as a disfavored observer to police misconduct.
    The harassment is highly offensive to a person of average sensibilities and intentionally designed to cause harm to the detainee’s personal integrity and Forth Amendment Constitutionally guaranteed freedom from unreasonable seizure; Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process; and First Amendment rights of speech, association, religion and travel, by imputing a felony to Plaintiff, implying publicly that violent repeat offenses were the crimes for which Plaintiff was and would be charged. The Defendant’s actions, which included publicly affirming the false accusation that Plaintiff consorts with a pistol packing knife wielding gangster 'friend named “john” and issues oblique terrorist threats toward merchants: Accusations sufficiently malicious to constitute Malicious Defamation of Character: Defendant having foreknowledge of Plaintiff's identity, history, and record of no convictions, knowingly, with forethought of malice, conspired to and did expose Plaintiff to harm, in an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment to cover police crimes, and to force Plaintiff to leave town.
    As a direct result of Defendant’s harassment Plaintiff was defamed and deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution; Defendant acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights, causing harm, suffering, humiliation, indignities, anguish, and damages,lconsistent with a violation of California Civil Code section 45: Defamation of Character, exposing Wood to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...."
    Plaintiff is continually harassed and disparaged by resident and business onlookers present at the various ongoing incidents of arrest threats, and has become a target for humiliating derision as a result of Defendant's bad faith unreasonable illegal actions. Defendant reached a mutual understanding and acted in concert to undertake a course of conduct violative of plaintiffs civil rights, agreeing to “target” Plaintiff, without factual basis of the crimes alleged. Threatening arrest, failing to obtain evidence, and instigating the maliciously harassment of Plaintiff, as aforedescribed:
    Defendant contrived false charges against Plaintiff, to cause her to be maliciously defamed, subjected to conspiratorial actions, amounting to malicious Defamation of Character; depicting Wood in a manner publicly defamatory pursuant to California Civil Code section 45, exposing Wood to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...."
    The detention of an individual, as a reprisal, or to ensure that the arresting officer is not observed in the commission of crimes frequently committed at the location, is not reasonable seizure, and is unconstitutional.
    By his assertions and oral and written aspersion, insisting that Wood could and would be arrested for a felony charge of CPC section 602 (t) (1) and (2) Aggravated Trespass; Defendant Simko inflicted harm by causing permanent damage to Plaintiff Wood's reputation, with deliberate indifferent to the likelihood that the Constitutional rights of Wood would be thereby violated. Defendant Simko willfully acted personally in order to violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right of Assembly, without cause, where no law enforcement function was necessitated.
    Defendant Simko assured that officers neglected to perform the required law enforcement duties indicated by the crimes at hand; and guaranteed violation of CPC section 403: Disturbance of the Peace, and 415: participating in and contributing to the disturbance. The end that the Defendant seeks is not a laudable one, in this case, and it does not justify unlawful actions by law enforcement.
    CONCLUSION
    If the courts are to discharge their duty to support the state and federal constitutions they must be willing to aid in their enforcement, rather than participate in and condone lawless activities of police officers, on a hunt for crimes where none have been committed. The fact of a three year history as a valued customer at the Salvation Army Family Store, and wildlife artist at Mile Square Park, indicates that, rather than intending to commit a violation of California Penal Code section 602 (t) (1) and 2): Aggravated Trespass, Wood was engaged in the enjoyments of life's ordinary pursuits; there is no law prohibiting shopping, drawing, meeting friends, or conversing with fellow Buddhists. Defendant conspired with Officer Hughes, and others, to conjure evidence to present at trial, for a crime that he knew full well had not been committed, and to exclude exonerating evidence: A lawless venture dependent on the court's endorsement and actions, as law enforcer, evidence gatherer, and judge. A violation of law had been committed; a racketeer had tried to steal Wood's purse, at the Salvation Army Store, but instead of hearing her complaint racketeer store manager Dizon constructed a phantasmagorical crime denouncing Wood, where she gathers with fellow seniors, on Discount Wednesday, at the thrift store: Apparently the plan was to get rid of Wood, by deeming her as a gangster Molly, a total fabrication, sieved into existence in bad faith, with no regard for law, liberty, or justice, as a pretext to public safety, and which is, in fact, a 'poor may not assemble here' edict, when abused under color of authority. Similarly Wood was harassed at the Park and elsewhere by officers who refuse to identify themselves; areas where prostitution and drug sales are rampant. Shopping is lawful, drawing is lawful: Assembly is a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom, as is Religion
    United States v. Elliott 83F. Supp. 2d 637, 641-648, 650(E.D.) VA 1999; reckless immediate destruction of evidence. Termed, Youngblood violation, or bad faith: Arizona v. Youngblood, 466 US 51. 109. S. Ct. 333, 337, 102 L. Ed. 2d. 281 (1988).
    An arrest for merely not providing or for providing a reasonable explanation not acceptable to the officer for being at a location is a false arrest for the purpose of a federal civil rights action. Failure to comply with a directive to provide identification is a false arrest, according to Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1979) Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983). Fields v. City of Oklahoma, 810 F. 2d 830 (8th Cir. 1987). Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, 820 F 2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1987). State v. Hasan  760 P. 2d 1377 (Ariz 1988). Much worse is the unlawful detention of and threat of arrest of Wood; a shopper who complied completely with directives and has no criminal history or basis on which arrest threats could be made. The officer did not have the authority to demand that Wood leave the premisis on threat of “future” arrest.
    The US Supreme Court has ruled that false arrest or false imprisonment violate the Forth Amendment ban on unreasonable seizures. Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 US 386 at pages 388, 394-95. False arrest or false imprisonment also violate Plaintiff;s Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Zinermon v. Bush (1990) 494 US 113 at page 125.
    Defendant acting in his individual capacity conspired to and reached a mutual understanding and acted in concert to undertake a course of conduct violative of plaintiffs civil rights, enabling patrol officers to “target” plaintiff, detaining Plaintiff, as aforedescribed. to cause her to be maliciously defamed, subjected to Conspiratorial actions, amounting to malicious Defamation of Character; depicting Wood in a manner publicly defamatory pursuant to California Civil Code section 45, exposing Wood to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...."
    As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed unlawful and deliberately indifferent malice the Defendant committed, a violation of California Civil Code section 45. Plaintiff suffered grievous harm to her reputation and suffers ongoing public humiliation. Because of Defendant's deliberate indifference Plaintiff was and continues to be detained under humiliating and emotionally distressful circumstances, including public obloquy.
    Plaintiff has frequently and openly criticized the Police Department, in Newsletters, Department of Internal Affairs Complaints, in phone communications, interviews, e-mails, on websites, and blogs. The unlawful detention of January 20, 2016, and subsequent unlawful detentions represent an ongoing campaign, in Fountain Valley, to punish Plaintiff for expressing her opinion, and to retaliate for her success in going into the Superior Court of California, as well as Federal Court, and forcing the dismissal of charges for alleged violations frequently attributed to her in the absence of crimes that are more appropriately attributed to the police and their cooperatives who commit them .
    Jackson v. City of San Diego 121 Cal. App. 3d 579, 175 Cal Rptr 395 (1981); The period of incarceration for false arrest includes a post-arraignment period if plaintiff prevails at a preliminary hearing. The court pointed out that conduct which initially constituted false imprisonment became merged with conduct amounting to malicious prosecution.
    An arrest not based on probable cause or consent is unlawful according to the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Dunaway v. New York, an arrest and transportation to a police station for three hours required probably cause, and is constitutionally prohibited without it: the officer is not discharging a lawful duty. Dunaway v. N.Y.  422 U.S. 200, 95 S. Ct. 2240 (1979).
    “It is clear that State action designed to retaliate against and chill political expression strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.” Gibson, 781 F.2d at 1338.
    Plaintiff, a model citizen, has no arrest convictions for the charge on which she was detained, she has no convictions at all. The detentions take place in bad faith without probable cause or impetus of an investigation or interviews with eyewitnesses, and without reliable information that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the Plaintiff has probably committed a crime: therefore the officer’s conduct, non-immunizable willful fraudulent corrupt and malicious, employing abuse of authority under color of law, constituting misconduct, resulted in injury to Plaintiff Wood's reputation, due to Defendant's reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s record, is non-immunizable.
    Operational failure to train in arrest standards are not immunized: Prentzel v. State, Dept of Public Safety, 53 P.3d 587 (Alaska 2002), A claim of warrant less arrest was not immunized. No Employer immunity for false arrest: Good faith irrelevant if probably cause absent, Overall v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 910 P2d 1087 (Oklahoma Ct. App. (1995).
    Negligent Supervision. Doe v. State, 267 A.D. 2nd , 913, 700 N.Y. S. 2nd. 554, 557, 558-9 (1999). Sheriff responsible for deputy raping inmates.
    McCrink v. City of NY 296 N.Y. 9971 N.E. 2d419 (1947) said off duty officer is regarded as acting within the scope of his duty when he was not fired for alcoholic attacks, “duty” owned not confined to specific foreseeable victim.
    Police are held to a higher standard, they are not allowed to be duped into defaming law abiding citizens, nor can the Defendant be protected by immunity. Wood is no longer a well respected member of the community; defamatory unlawful detentions impugned her character, consequently Wood has been deprived of her livelihood, by the Tort of Defamation, perpetrated by Captain Simko.
    As a member of the Plein Air Art Movement (artists who draw daily in the open air) Wood draws regularly, at strip malls, parks, zoos, and other public places. Plein Air (pronounced Plin R) artists must be welcomed by the community, in order to produce every day. The official communication, Fountain Valley Police Department Events Report, and accompanying recording and Citizen Arrest forms, refer to Nancy Wood by name: The City of Fountain Valley, the Fountain Valley Police Department, and Officer Hughes, created that Event resulting in defamatory material which actually refers to Nancy Wood by name: Defamation exists. In fact, Nancy Wood was falsely and maliciously depicted in a permanent record by Officer Hughes, and others, these publications are accessible to the public, and are perjured libelous accounts of an event having taken place in public, subjecting Wood to humiliation and threat of unlawful arrest, recorded for the public record.

    CRITERIA MET
    Wood has shown that: Captain Mike Simko made statements and enabled Fountain Valley patrol officers to make statements;
    those statements were published;
    those statements caused injury;
    those statements were false; and
    those statements did not fall into a privileged category.
    NANCY WOOD HAS PROVED FOUR ELEMENTS
    NECESSARY TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION
    Defendant Simko made and encouraged (through Officer Hughes and others), false and defamatory statements concerning Nancy Wood; of a felony that had no basis in fact, and made unprivileged publications to a third party; acting negligently and maliciously in publishing the communications.

    DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS



    Defamatory statements included any the following:
    A communication that imputes a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony
    A communication that exposes a person to hatred
    A communication that reflects negatively on a person’s character, morality, or integrity
    A communication that impairs a person’s financial well-being
    A communication that suggests that a person suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with that person.
    Captain Simko has succeeded in accomplishing all of the above.

        MEANING OF A COMMUNICATION

    The context of a statement may determine whether the statement is defamatory. "The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express." Taking into account extrinsic facts and circumstances in determining the meaning of the statements made in events sheets and during unlawful detentions ’ from their inception, are clearly intended to cast Nancy Wood into the (unwitting) role of a criminal; as an addled, dangerous, mentally ill, arrestee; a gangster Molly who menaces merchants with gun toting knife wielding boasts.
    The context of the statements, authored by Officers, and met with indifference by Captain Simko and entered into the public record, leaves no doubt: It is not necessary that the communication refer to Nancy Wood by name; her subjugation to unlawful detention, and threats of arrest, constitutes defamation.

        TRUTH

    Nancy Wood has proved falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Falsity is an element of defamation that must be proved in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander. The Officers had foreknowledge on each occasion of ongoing unlawful detentions that Nancy Wood, had no record of convictions, and were aware that Nancy Wood has no history of mental illness, criminal associations, nor substance abuse history. The assertion that she is a candidate for arrest is entirely false. Even if the Defendant states facts that are false, but the "gist" or "sting" of the communication is substantially true, then the author can use that as a defense, or justification, but where:
    NONE OF THE ASSERTIONS ABOUT NANCY WOOD ARE TRUE,
    THE AUTHOR HAS NO DEFENSE
    The authors of the false statements, Defendant Simko and others, knew when they cast the aspersions, that Wood is a reputable member of the community, of many years., with no convictions. Even were they to imagine or to have heard it rumored that a criminal association exists, or that a potential crime could evolve, they had an obligation to make a reasonable effort to confirm their assumptions: Because of Defendant Simko's deliberate indifference they just figured, 'why bother; we can bully her down, and get her out of our turf.'

        CONSENT

    Where a plaintiff consents to the publication of defamatory matter, then, this consent is a complete defense to a defamation action. Nancy Wood did not consent to anything, she was unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest on numerous occasions, without justification, as a result of Captain Simko's indifference. Officer Hughes made a permanent Audio Record of an unlawful detention, slander, filed with his Events Report constituting perjury, harassment, and misrepresentation, and abuse of authority under color of law: Defendant Simko allowed the deception and intimidation of a peaceful law abiding citizen, Plaintiff Wood, by sweeping abuses under the rug; squandering the tax payer dollar, and worse, costing Wood her reputation and livelihood.

    The fallacious record of Unlawful Detentions, documented by defendant Simko, Officer Hughes, and others, is NOT:
    A statement that is made for the protection of the publisher’s interest;”
    a statement that is made for the protection of the interests of a third person;
    a statement that is made for the protection of common interest;
    a statement that is made to ensure the well-being of a family member;
    a statement that is made where the person making the communication believes that the public interest requires communication of the statement to a public officer or other official;
    People have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation. Discourse is essential to a free society, and the more open and honest the discourse, the better for society. By the same token the dissemination of lies, by Internal Affairs Captain Simko, and by officers acting with his endorsement, constructed to impeach the credibility of disfavored individuals, is unconscionable. The intent to hide crimes committed by merchants, is egregious as is the officer's intent to construct crimes, as if perpetrated by Wood, where no crime was committed.
    Plaintiff Nancy Wood, demands judgment against Defendant Simko, for compensatory damages in the amount of $2,500.00, and further demands judgment for punitive damages and such other relief as court costs, that this Court seems just, proper, and equitable.

    DAMAGES CLAIMED:
    A)    Amount claimed as of this date: $2,500.00
    B)    Total amount claimed: $2,500.oo
    C) This is a REQUEST FOR RESTORATIVE DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00.
    The defamatory statements being entirely without basis in fact Wood is entitled to the above damages.
    Respectfully Submitted, November 1.2016
Nancy Wood ______________________ Plaintiff
SAMPLING OF DAYS WORK AND RECIEPTS: November 28, 2012: 4 minute sketches:
    Original Receipts Attached
ALICE Nancy Wood


Receipts, November 28, 2012:




November 28, 2012
Sample Day, April 24, 2013: Receipts Attached


Receipts, April 24, 2013:


Sample Day, October 1, 2013: Receipts Attached








Receipts, October 1, 2013:








Sample Day, June 16 , 2012: Receipts Attached






Receipts, June 16 , 2012:






June 16, 2012
    1 Rosabell Larson, a witness at the scene, may be contacted at *82 (714) 537-7937.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)