I'm Getting Too Old For Fun and Games with the Cops:
Sunday evening was very strange, on top of all of the aches and pains that accompany the demands of old age, (all the more reason to resent my meditative peace being disturbed by armed security guards and obnoxious arrest-happy cops); the Landhousing Security guard, at Mom Supermarket strip mall, told me that he was going to have the police arrest me, again.

Which would make it the third Sunday in a row, of what appears to be ongoing Malicious Prosecution, in the absence of a crime, for the purpose of gaining an illegitimate conviction, at the dubious Mom Supermarket, 5111 W. Edinger Ave., Santa Ana, California.

This Catholic solicitor has a hard time with anyone who isn't out of her mold, which indicates to me that she may not actually represent a non-profit; most non-profit solicitors are accommodating of each other, it's the rogues and charlatans, competing for cash-grab dollars who fight off competitors, over turf space. Her group is very aggressive, shoving people out of their way, this lady throughs a snit fit if any other clerics are in proximity. She and her fellow 'Catholics' take the buses all over town to stand in every market doorway all day every day, they ask people for 'Market Money;' the counterfeit dollars that Markets print and offer as a gratuity to customers who purchase more than fifty bucks of groceries at a time. This lady gathers them by the pile and cashes them in for US dollars. Most legitimate 501c3 charities give a few hours of their time on occasion, when I see this group; a full time cash grab, I know it's a racket, often the elderly are put out on the street and threatened by gangs, or worse by their own kids. The Market employees form a prayer circle with this elderly lady, and they claim that she is a member of St. Barbars Church, as are they. The Mom describes her as a wealthy woman with time on her hands. His story is not even vaguely believable. I tried to find out if she is being exploited, but, she speaks no English.

Let The Games Begin!
I told Mr. Corona to "go ahead, call the police; this will be the third arrest," it seems like an awful lot of malicious prosecution for one security company to indulge in, in one month, but I guess, until they actually have to come to the table and fork over damages, they don't care. Landhousing Security guard, Mr. 'I'm a Sergeant, see these stripes' Corona, may or may not have called the police, but in any event they didn't come to Mom Supermarket while I was there, on Mother's Day, Sunday May 14, 2017. Breaking their record of two consecutive unlawful arrests in a row, first on April 23, 2017, and again on April 30, 2017. I called dispatch to find out why no cops had told the Landhousing security guards to stop harassing me, after I reported that a guard had threatened to shoot me several days prior; I complained to Landhousing Security Service Supervisor Phillip in an email, to Land Housing Security, at 2601 Del Rosa Ave Ste 222f, San Bernardino, CA.), after the guard threatened to shoot me, (see photo and tape 170410-1590), on May 2, 2017, while I was parking my bike at Mom Supermarket, 5111 Edinger Ave. Santa Ana, Ca., 92704. (714) 839-3939. I parked my bike, and there the Landhousing Security Services guard verbally assaulted me and gestured as if to shoot me, "Pish, Pish, Pish." 

The same guard maced an innocent man on May 10, 2017. The 911 dispatcher was apparently OK with all of that because when I asked her why the guard was still harassing me she said, "...as far as I'm concerned you are breaking the law by trespassing."

WHO IS IN THE LOUPE?
When you have to sue under Federal Code section 1083: False Arrest, the loup, is the most obvious part of a conspiracy deposition, in which the Plaintiff asks about all of the snippets of information that give away the individuals who have participated in a group effort to persecute a disfavored individual, with a False Arrest.

The 911 dispatcher is in the loupe, it's not hard to tell; in a conspiracy case cops always lose, because of their 'group-think' antics and dirty tactics which are very transparent, this dispatcher is supporting a Malicious Prosecution; she will also have to go down with the ship on Federal conspiracy charges, I told her that the criteria for a violation of law under CPC 602: Trespass, requires priors of which I have none, I added that I was shocked that she doesn't understand the law: "...as far as I'm concerned you are breaking the law by trespassing." What is lacking here is intelligence, she should know that for an officer to accuse someone of a crime that officer has to witness the crime: I have no idea of what the hell she thinks that she is doing accusing me of trespassing, over the phone, miles away from the scene, maybe she is just a batcrap crazy dirt-bag-in-blue --cops understand little more than where and how to grab cash, they could care less about the law; why do you suppose that insurance companies disregard police reports, because it's the gang in blue are the culture of confabulation; all cops lie all of the time, the only thing they know is how to grab your money--. Evidently Mr. 'stripes' Corona has adopted the cop philosophy of lying all of the time in order to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime. So far he has not asked me for cash, but he hinted that forking over would change things.
I continued, "If four more cops show up, they will face a False Arrest charge and lose their badges as well, I have every intention of suing all of them..." (four at the first arrest, 2 more at the second, and a dozen appendage conspirators). He cut me off, "For money, more money for you, that's what you want?" I nipped it in the bud, "I'm not suing for the money, I'm suing for justice."

Mr. Corona (above) either doesn't know that intimidation, harassment, and defamation, at the behest of the Landhousing Security Service, the property owner, the Market, and or the Police, is unlawful criminally and civilly: I'm guessing that the Police have told him to pretend it isn't, or have baited him with a pot of gold at the end of the arrest rainbow (the City pays a c-note for information leading to an arrest, the arrest does not have to lead to a conviction). Let's deem him Mr. 'Corrupted' Corona. He does not seem to be in the loupe; someone is always thrown under the bus, to take the fall for a conspiracy, Corona could be the doup; kept out of the loupe.

This man (above) is in the loupe, (see tape 170422-1792) he doesn't know me, nor Steve who I sit with at Mary's Kitchen, yet he always joins us with prattle about my arrests, he seem to know a lot about the situation, for someone who wasn't there, on a previous occasion he told me that the police are not liable for citizen's arrests, (yet it's the arresting officer's name that appears on the citation, and it is the arresting officer who solicits the citizen's signature on the Citizen Arrest form, and is the arresting officer without whom the arrest can not be made. Which is why the City, the PD and the Arresting Officer are liable. Today Mr. Loupe Insider talked about the second arrest, "What are you doing there, why are you at the Market? (asked with stern suspicion) You have a bad attitude toward the police..." In the old days, if someone like this guy had put a letter in your file stating that you had a bad attitude toward police, the judge's boxers would be all in a bunch over it and he would gavel you guilty' Mr. Loupe Insider is an old guy, he has not observed that judges stopped doing that, and now in fact, they respect people who stand up to dirty cops. After all of criminal convictions against law enforcement people like Sheriff Corona and Lee Baca, a tidal wave of change has been created in the judiciary.
I wanted to encourage this inner loupe cooperative's old school prattle, I asked, "Why do you say that?" He denounced me with, "Well you told the officer that he is not very observant. You insulted him! You insulted him about his job!" Mr. In The Loupe glared at me indignantly, as if to say, 'cops are right always; their victims are always wrong.' No one believes that any more, I responded, "Of course I did, he is not very observant for a police officer, his job is to know who is where and what people are doing, I have been there doing exactly the same thing every Sunday for three years; shopping and meeting with friends from the temple, or from the other faith groups. Sometimes I draw, or talk to my art students. Without any cause or suspicion of a crime, both the cops and the security guards are now suddenly accusing me of "Hanging Out," trespassing, loitering, and soliciting. After three years shouldn't they have observed that I am not doing any of that. I always buy the same thing, a fried fish. I am a model citizen, perfectly predictable, I have no convictions, no history of alcohol or drug abuse, no mental illness, the only reason they are bothering me is that they are racketeering in that strip mall parking lot and they want to get rid of observers." Mr. Loupe gave me his very best, askance glare. To punctuate his theatrics he moved to a different table and turned full around every few minutes to cast his disapproving glace my way. Steve laughed out loud, "I don't know his name." I remarked, "He is some sort of cop cooperative: Normal people in this day and age, even for money, are not apt to sign up, it takes a special kind of evil to enlist in the defense of the police, knowing what we know now from seeing so many bad cops in videos on the internet. Seeing how top down dirty they are and how many recent convictions their leadership have been nailed with. A certain kind of demented sado-masachist would encourage and defend cops, a regular self respecting law abiding person would not: Abuse of authority under color of law has ruined America. Patriotic people have ceased to put up with dirty-cop antics. Cops still have subjects though, like that guy, maybe he is a child molester, or somehow out of their mold; the same as that."

I should send this photo to the dispatcher who asked me, suspiciously, (when I reported that a Landhousing guard had threatened to shoot me), "Do you ride your bike to Mom Supermarket all the way from Orange." For obvious reasons, yes, I do.That dispatcher actually sent an officer response when the Landhousing guard threatened to shoot me, but the officers never made contact. In the incident at hand the dispatch Bimbo did not bother to send a police response. Police are very very weak. They are like the mean kids who used to pick on the fat kids in grammar school, anything goes, once they start, no matter how stupid they soun,d they keep going with whatever stupid persecution they are bothering you about. 

I'm starting to get worried for my safety, because, there are so many dirty cops involved and so many cash-hungry trigger-happy security guards, in this ongoing conspiracy to criminalize me, none of whom seem to know that their careers are over: When it becomes clear that they have cut off their heads to spite their faces, by relentlessly intimidating and harassing me with vacuous arrests and threats, I'm guessing that their first impulse will be to harm me. Corona kept saying, "We have a deal!" I explained to him that, right before the police had him sigh off on the April 30, 2017, Citizen Arrest form, he had asked me to go somewhere else for a few hours on Sunday evenings, so that he would not get fired, but he let the cops bully him into signing the Arrest papers, instead, he should have let the same asshole who signed them the first time sign the second time as well; the owner's brother, "if I get a phone I can call people to tell them a better place to meet between 4PM and 8:PM on Sundays, it's a possibility, I will do my best, but if every time I come to the Market to talk to my phone service provider Landhousing guards have harassed and arrested me, how am I going to get my phone..." he finished the sentence, "activated."

The very next day, Monday, the Landhousing security guard, who speaks no English, (above) arrived in his silver square-back at 4:PM, to sit in front of the Massage parlor while Jr. and his bother committed strong arm robberies and broke into cars, until 6:PM, when they saw me they left, I asked them before they left why the guard didn't stop them, Jr.'s brother said, "Oh, um, oh the guard, Oh, sorry, bye..." Jr.'s attitude was equally sheepish, but he didn't apologize for harassing me out of his turf with arrests.

Junior and his brother have been breaking into cars for ten years, above is Junior at Saigon City Market strong arming a shopper for cash, and below he is just finishing up an afternoon of robbery with a friend, at Mom Supermarket, supervised by the Landhousing security guard. 

I waved to Junior as he and his brother left, I said, it's fine, "Cops do it all of the time: I'll have the last word in court. They will be divested of their badges."

Calling 911 was a waste of time: The in the loup dispatcher stated that the police department had been getting a lot of calls on me. She had clearly decided to block my emergency call, and join the group effort to terrorize me with arrest threats, so I asked her why the police department didn't arrest the caller if there were so many calls, since making a bogus 911 call is criminally actionable, as is obstructing commerce, assault, and harassment, she said she would like to have me arrested for making the call at hand, "...you are the one who should be arrested, because this is not an emergency what is your emergency!" There is nothing worse than a dispatcher undermining the public confidence, first she accused me of trespassing, and now of making a fraudulent 911 call. She is a pro at abuse of authority under color of law, I'm guessing she has a lot of experience as a dirty cop / racketeer. She seemed determined to keep her dirt-bag-in-blue friends from being held accountable. I wonder if she would have been so accusatory if she know I was recording her. It seemed like the bluster of the cavalier. I tried to get the call back on track, "I'm calling because the Landhousing security guard is harassing me with arrest threats, he is armed!"
She didn't think I was calling to ask her how her day is going; clearly I called because I felt threatened by a nut case guard with a gun who keeps having me arrested in the absence of a crime, I had made the same 911 call before, and I had reported another guard who pepper strayed a man  previously, (May 10, 2017, in the face, for no reason what so ever, as he left the market, the guard called him back only to spray him in the face, it was the same guard who barks at me in Spanish, until the police come and can't figure out what the hell he is saying either. I reported the pepper spray incident, but the police have 'already decided,' to invalidate anything from me:

May 11, 2017 response to my May 10, 2017 report of a shopper at Mom Supermarket pepper sprayed by Landhousing Security Services guard as the man was on his way home
. 
from: CaSantaAnaPd@coplogic.com
Your Online Police Report T17001753 Has Been Rejected.
We're sorry the following problem was found during review
of your submitted report T17001753:

WHAT ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO REPORT? INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUE A TARASAFF REPORT. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.
Thank you,

Online Officer
Santa Ana Police Department

Instant Reply from Nancy Wood
Dear Online Officer,

Regarding your email (above). As I stated, previously, I do not have time for your argumentative attitude, if you are concerned about Tarasoff, go to my blog: rivercamps.blogspot.com/ there is an incident in which an old man was pepper sprayed by a Landhousing Security guard, (at Mom Supermarket 5111 W. Edinger, Santa Ana), in the absence of any provocation, cause, crime, or criteria for a crime. Also is a description: I was arrested twice recently, at Mom Supermarket, in blatant disregard for the criteria of the charge: CPC 602 (t). Landhousing Security signed off on the arrest. The arresting officers decided to rewrite the penal code: divorcing the criteria for a violation from the charge: You can imagine how the tape recordings of those arrests is going to sound to the judge. To say nothing of hours of tapes proving conspiracy between Landhousing Security and the SAPD, to criminalize me (and others)in the absence of a crime, while Landhousing and SAPD run rackets in the strip mall parking lot at issue. So, before all of this blows up in your face and makes the PD look like buffoons in a high profile Federal Section 1983 False Arrest case, maybe you want to mitigate your FLAMING inability to 'protect,' by piping down, because there clearly is a job to be done here, it's called 'Police Work,' just a friendly suggestion. Thank you for your time. Sarcasm intended. Good bye. Nancy Wood (PS Use a spellcheck; are you an idiot: "THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUE A TARASAFF REPORT."

In 1974, the California Supreme Court stated in Tarasoff that (witnesses) have a “duty to warn” prospective victims. Tarasoff is a person, not a term of art. I'm guessing that the court did not mean 'duty to warn' via an idiotic Online reporting system, because if it did old men and women would simply be victimized by corrupt cops conjuring crimes where there are none, with their cash-grab mace toting opportunistic pistol packing security guard racketeer pals.

Meanwhile the 911 dispatcher told me to call the Security company, I told her that I had, she asked me again what the emergency was, I told her: "The guard who is harassing me with intimidating arrest threats in the absence of a crime, is armed," (and when he attacks me wouldn't it be better for the police to disarm him than for me to have to do it, in self defense; which is a slam dunk defense if I have to kill him with his own gun). "The police have the authority, under these circumstances, to disarm and arrest the guard," (if I have to do it in order to make a citizen's arrest, it won't end well) and it shows failure to protect on the part of the police, finally I said, "Are you telling me to hang up, because I would be more than happy to do that." Dead silence. Dispatchers are not allowed to tell the 911 caller to hang up, they have to send a responding officer, whether they like the caller or not. I hung up. She didn't send an officer.
She is going to have to answer for her conspiratorial behavior in a federal conspiracy charge. Anyway; she may as well have to explain why she ignored my 911 request for a police response. She will say, 'the caller hung up,' and that will be the first lie in her deposition, and the only lie needed to impeach her credibility and cost her the badge, as well as ending her ability to testify; (abuse of authority under color of law, good riddins). The Discovery question will be, to me, "Did you feel that the dispatcher told you to hang up?" I will answer, "She told me she was going to have me arrested for making an invalid 911 call, so I asked her if she was telling me to hang up, and then I hung up. I hung up because she told me that the alternative was jail. Obviously she meant for me to hang up; she did not send a responding officer. I hung up on threat of jail." (which makes the conspiracy to Maliciously subjugate me to the legal process, for the purpose of gaining a conviction in the absence of a crime, egregious): Officer Dumb Bunny Dispatcher just upped the cost to the tax payer by three million dollars. It's ironic, because the booking officer, S.Buobo, who misidentified herself three times during booking, on April 30, 2017, told me that she was doing me a favor by not locking me in a cell, and said that I should thank her for getting me out before 11:PM, after she told that I would not get out until 5:AM, (but changed her mind when her cohort told her I was filing with IA against her for telling the arresting officer that a false arrest if OK considering, "Nancy maybe he is tired of you, this is your third arrest this week," I asked, "So are you saying that if a cop is 'tired' of someone he can go ahead and persecute the person with unlawful arrests?" While she was back tracking and trying to get her pal to open a door that presumably is locked after 11:PM, (it was 11:30PM), "you try to mitigate for the cops don't you?" I said, "Yes but this is arrest number two, I try to be accommodating and allow for mistakes, but this shows deliberate Malice of Forethought on the part of the arresting officers..." She started yelling at me that it was the third arrest. Cops always give themselves away; how much planning went into these bogus arrests, if even booking officers who never see the field are prepped on the arrests that never even took place but were part of a plan to falsely incarcerate someone? I'm guessing, by the fact that the Landhousing security guards are Mexican thugs, that the money behind this racket is Mexican drug money, perhaps she is in the loup because she is the gatekeeper who allows drugs to be brought in via booking: Junior and his brother are long time heroin addicts, and are there every day robbing people in the Mom's parking lot, to get money for drugs, while the Landhousing security guard supervises.

I had called 911 after Security guard Corona shpealed me for about ten minutes with arrest threats, "I can't have you here, I have to call the police and have you arrested again..." I told him once again that he is violating my civil rights, harassing me, and obstructing commerce. "You are costing these cops their jobs, so far ten (eleven counting the dispatcher who I was about to call) cops have participated in this 'criminalize the nun', conspiracy, maybe four more will show up and it will cost them their badges too!" He droned on and on terming me "hanging out." A term that each and every cop, including Gutierres at Internal Affairs had pelted me with.

Just then as Corona was barking at me, in front of the Market entrance, one of my students, a seven year old boy, sauntered happily up to me with his mom; he proudly handed me a ten dollar bill (which not quite paid for the three hours of baby/sitting, art lessons, he got while his mom was having her hair done, at the other mall: I really hate that if people see me drawing they feel entitled to park their kids with me, I thanked him and his mom, blessed them in Vietnamese, and then told the guard, "He is a very good boy, but they owe me a lot more than that, I give him art lessons. That's probably all they can afford, it's OK, it doesn't matter, at least it's a start." Mr. Corona quickly entered something into his phone, probably a soliciting accusation; he is a man who would lie about something as black and white as the California Penal Code, he will lie about anything, hoping that if he spatters the kitchen wall with enough crap, maybe some of it will stick (the kitchen sink perhaps), His tactics probably works some of the time, but not when everything he says and does is on tape: How many lies does it take to make a liar: Just one, and after that none of his testimony is admissible in court.

The police know that I have never lost a case, and I never will, but the police have locked Landhousing security out of the loup, oddly, the Market owner / property owner is in the loup, but Landhousing security has been thrown under the bus, along with the property owner's brother, all in the name of heroin sales.

The only other person in the loup is a very weird cop cooperative named, Ray Fishcher, who has been trying, for three years, to lead me like a Judas goat to the arrest slaughter house; constantly trying to foist illegal substances off on me, or to get me to pander some females in his direction, or to open a beer with him, in the park; the list goes on and on, recently he brought up the subject of dollar fifty cat fish, which gave him away (as if it was not already obvious; the only 'regulars' who bother nuns where they meditate are cop cooperatives looking for the c-note that one of their cop buds has offered them to entice you or me into a crime, once the crime is committed they cooperative gets one hundred dollars from the City for "information leading to an arrest." Sometimes it's a juvinile asking you to buy him a pack of ciggarettes, they only try that once, but this guy Ray Fischer, is relentless, he shows up every time that I am there, without exception. I had inadvertently referred to sale catfish instead of Tilapia, in this blog: The only people who read this blog are two Orange cops, who in turn, have given it to SAPD cops, who have in turn given it to their cooperatives, who mine it for incriminating crapola. A few entries ago I stated that anyone could afford catfish at Mom's; it's on sale for $1.50, I meant to write Tilapia, but I forgot how to spell it; it isn't in the spell check and I didn't have time to look it up, so I wrote catfish instead, by way of disproving the arresting officer's assertion, "You don't have money for fish." After I had told him I was waiting for a fried fish; he had asked me why I was at the market, during the second arrest, on April 30, 2017. Sure enough the next time that Ray Fisher showed up, which is a lot if not all of the time, sometimes two times in one evening, (even though I have told him on every occasion, that I just come to the market to meditate and engage in the usual shopping pursuits, not to meet with him), he asked, 'What did you think about that catfish sale, wasn't that something, only a buck fifty!" Catfish has never been on sale. There was no catfish sale. I said, "Yes, but when I went back to get another one to take home the small ones were all gone." (Actually I had gone back to get another Tilapia, but the police arrested me before I could get it.)
The arresting officer, who insisted that I didn't have money for a fish must have been trying to nail me on a vagrancy tack-on charge; trying to prove himself right, "no money," for fish. Someone in this brainless cop conspiracy must have it up their sleeve to prove that my purpose at the market is illegitimate, maybe even to make the case that I came empty handed and intended to panhandle; with loitering as a possible tack on, since loitering is an intent crime that can be co-joined to panhandling. The kitchen sinK? Trespassing, vandalism, panhandling, vagrancy, what did they leave out, nothing? Your tax dollars on vacation! When I got to booking the first thing that Officer S. Buobo had asked, on April 30, 2017, during the second arrest, was, "Nancy, No Money? I told her that I had two bucks in my purse and six bucks in my computer bag, and I asked, "Did the arresting officer steal it?" She said, "No, it's there, he didn't take it." As he was going through my things right behind me, in a little room; neither did he book it, it was till there in my computer bag and purse when I got them back from property retrieval the next day. My sun glasses were broken. The officer never realized that the tap recorder in my purse was still recording during all of that.

Officer Buchannan, 

broke my shades, on April 30, 2017.

Back when I first started shopping at Mom Supermarket, and resting on an island in the parking lot, about three years ago. Ray Fischer, offered me a 'spare knife,' to cut some fruit that he gave me; I could see a squad car at the far entrance of the parking lot, lurking, I figured the less generosity I accepted from Ray Fishcher the better. That gift of a knife would have eventualized into a felony weapons charge of some sort. It's hard to believe that cops are not ashamed to be that lazy, but they love to do as little as possible in the way of law enforcement: real police work is dangerous, htey would rather conjure crimes than actually fight crime and combat criminals. I call it 'hand in the cookie jar' policing, it's how they scale to the top, following other dirtbags up the ranks.

Ray (above) likes to regal me with stories of his sex-ploits at the skanty Panty massage parlor. Why would any sane person tell a nun --who has mentioned many times that she just wants to be left alone to meditate and talk to other clerics-- keep coming back with stories of his sex-ploits, one time he actually offered me money, I said, "Actually I'd rather not accept your generosity, I have a lot of friends from the temple, who pay my bills' they ask about my situation and offer to cover my expenses,  that way I am free to illustrate for Buddhist Scholarly Journals and kids books, I don't worry about money, it's the Buddhist way, if I am short someone from the temple will show up with a hundred dollars, my brother is here from England, and I have six sisters who are Vietnamese, one of them lives here in Huntgington with her daughters, Laylani, they own a restaurant, and a penthouse..." Traditionally Buddhist give each other a dollar or two dollar bills, especially on Buddhist holidays, I mentioned my family (of illegitimate siblings) in order to reiterate to Ray Fishcher that I've already selected my friends in life and he is not on the list of family or friends: The part about the one hundred dollar bills is not true, like hell any non-profit is going to part with cash, that will be the day, when hell freezes over I'll get paid for my work, why do you think they make nuns vow to accept alms, it's because they sure as shit are not going to pay for any of your time and effort. I'm guessing that the reason why the two arrests took place on Sunday nights was because the cops wanted to get the c-note of Ray Fisher fame. They made a huge deal about the fact that all they could find was five bucks at the first arrest, at the second they were similarly disappointed, Officer Buchannan couldn't even wait until he got to the station, he ransacked my bags right there on the spot, and called me a dirty transient. He was still calling me names when we got to the station, one of the booking officers said, "Did you know that her father was a doctor?" Oddly he shut up after that. Buchannan tried to tack on 'lying to a police officer,' as a charge because I had told him that I was from DC, and my drivers license said, 'Baltimore.' The booking officer defended me, "Same thing, Baltimore is outside of DC." I pointed out that I wasn't born at home, I was born at Montobella Hospital in Baltimore outside of DC. (Montobella is on my birth certificate, but obviously I was not born there; it's a state hospital for the terminally ill, no one is born there it's where people go to die. I was born in Kathmandu, Tibet, where my mother worked for The World Health Organization: My mother was the head of surgery at Montobella, she could pinch a birth cirtificate and write whatever she wanted on it. Actually I didn't even get a birth certificate until I was five years old, I didn't leave Tibet until then, I am actually seventy years old. And really, who cares. But lets make it even more complicated, my philanderer father's maid was Ethel Parrot, the blues singer, and well, what a surprise, my sister and I look a lot more like Ethel than we look like our mother Orlyn Christopher Forbes, grand dame of the deep south. Ethel was 'high yella', she had five black sons, two black daughter, and two white daughters; Sue and I. When we reached puberty, and our secondary sexual characteristics evidence black genes, we moved to California, as far away from the truth as we could and still be in America. Sue sprouted a pink afro, I ridiculed her so much that my mother flew us to New Orleans to see an entire population of trolls, all with alabaster white skin, gray eyes, and pink hair, "These are the most beautiful women in the world, your sister, Susan, is one of them." I told my mother that Sue looked like a space alien genetic experiment. My mother turned full around in the car stared at me, and blurted, "You were, she isn't." I still wonder if it's true, the Himalayas are considered one of those strange places where post WWII genetic experiments were conducted. My parents both told me, when I was a teen, that they had not planned on having me around, that I was part of a cancelled experiment, sort of like the 2011 movie 'Hanna,' I guess.

When he first started casing me Ray Fisher showed me pictures of forts that he had built in the Laguna Hills, his drug dens. These hovels creeped me out, because he also talked about his boozer drug additions, and a girl who was addicted to speed who he hated, who had broken up with him, he showed me her picture, she was a lovely young black girl, he looks about seventy, he made her out to be public enemy number one, my observation was that the hillside hovels, were probably built to murder his version of public enemy women and hide their corpses, he constantly campaigned to take me there. He said he built them to live in if he became homeless. I even wrote a report to the police about it, because he has a van, that he relentlessly tried to get me into, on every conceivable excuse, every time that I was at the Market.
Ray Fischer seemed like, and still seems like the sort of person who would engage in serial murder. (I had studied serial killers in college, under Rustigan, the Uni-bomber expert). At one point Ray Fischer told me that one of his favorite Scanty Panty massage prostitutes had disappeared, which seemed more than suspicious, since he described her as someone who he had attempted a relationship with, as well as with many women on-line, but he eventually said she had reappeared at the massage parlor (thank God). In short Ray Fischer seems horrifyingly criminal, a loner, and he always has the same shpeal, which includes an invitation to go somewhere in his van, to take drugs, and ends with a long suicidal soliloquy, based on financial juggling, and the lack of a spouse and family.

When the police, and their many tentacled cooperatives decide to arrest someone but there is no cause, they get a cooperative to entice the person into a crime, or worse, they try to illicit a mental illness, such as depression, (even if you are 65 years old with no history of mental illness), the police will try to get you to say something, anything, to one of their patsies, like Ray Fischer, that indicates  you could be suicidal. If you do not take the bait they will simply have their patsy lie that you said you are suicidal. The reason that it works most of the time is because when someone retells a story, over and over, such as a story of depression, the listener projects the illness onto him or herself, psych majors are always diagnosing themselves with the illnesses in their text books, this cop tactic is more like programming, they want you to begin to believe that you are empathetic because you suffer depression as well! An epiphany! Or at least you might  share a similar story of mental problems as the story teller, and bam they pick you up on a 5150: Danger to Yourself and Others, bingo you are in the system. A Ticket Tar Baby is born. Many homeless people are permanently disenfranchised this way.

I guess they decided in this case, to give up on or skip all of that, although there may be a letter from Ray Fischer in my police file stating something that the police dictated to him about encounters that never happened. Apparently they opted to try to hoodwink me into falling for the trespassing charge instead. Ray has never failed to show up and bother me at about 6:PM every Sunday night, at seven he goes to the massage parlor, he comes back at eight, yet he was a no-show on the two consecutive Sundays that I was arrested. He described the big black SUV that was driven by one of the Landhousing guards, so, he was there, he just was not visible to me.

There are ways around all of the cop bullshit, for example it's easy to discredit their 'events sheets,' which consist of all the lies that they can gather from their cooperatives, SAPD has about thirty fake events sheets on me; they assume that judges are persuaded by a colossus of investigations attributed to a potential arrestee, in fact, if a judge sees more than three events sheets in your file he chucks it all out of the window as cop crap, and pure perjury. Which is part of the reason why I have no convictions, the police make themselves look ridiculous by trying so hard.
There are a couple of other ways that cops shoot themselves in the foot very time, but I don't want to point them out here, where the cops will see their errors and do back flips to correct them. My grandfather was a Supreme Court justice, and we owned the biggest law firm in Alabama, so I know a lot of what judges are seeing when an arrestee comes before them. It's not at all what cops imagine. In this case it's the keystome cops; and in fact, there is a court order in my file stating that the police have subjected me to so many false arrests that any further arrests are grounds to remove the arresting officer's badges. Apparently SAPD did not see that document, but the judge will.

After I hung up I showed Mr. Corona a copy of CPC 602 (t) (1and2) and I read it out loud to him, I told him that the Dispatcher had asked me why I didn't report my apprehensions about his harassment to his employer.
As the dispatcher had suggested I had, in fact, contacted the owner of the Landhousing security company as well as Mr, Corona's supervisor, a man named Phillip, by email, and I had even posted the trespass code to Landhousing's yelp page, and to another public page that they use. But the suggestion from the dispatcher was probably a reflection of the fact that they have charged me with codes that they can't make stick, and so they want to get me on witness tampering, which is what a defendant communicating with a plaintiff would be, even in a 'citizen's' arrest.

  4/15/17 at 10:17 AM

• From: nancy wood

• To: landhousingsecurity@gmail.com

Dear Phillip, This is a pre-trial request that landhousing security stop harassing me. I am not a criminal, I have no history of mental illness, and no history of drug or alcohol abuse, yet, your security guards, have harassed me with arrest threats several times each week, in a continuum, for about one month (photos and tape recordings available on request).

Last night, at 8:30, your employee enlisted the police to prohibit me from accessing the property at Mom Supermarket, 5111 Edinger St, (at Euclid) Santa Ana, CA. (photo and tape recording available on request); this harassment is a violation of my civil rights: 'Sitting by a wayside,' in the public thoroughfare is lawful, as is the right of transit, and assembly, according to the Constitution and the California Penal Code: I was seated ac cross from the entrance of Mom's Supermarket, where I draw portraits of shoppers who are waiting there for rides; and where I happen upon friends, and partake of many of the enjoyments of life available to the public at that mall, such as the Vietnamese take-out deli, and the fish-fry service at the Market; the specialized transcontinental travel and phone discount services to Saigon, and the various specialty restaurants and food shops, all of which make that Strip Mall a popular spot.

I have no convictions, further, while shopping, drawing, obtaining services, meeting with friends, or waiting for friends otherwise occupied at the mall stores, I was not in the commission of a crime. I did not and have never met the criteria for a conviction, under any of the laws of the State of California or of the United States of America: According the the California Penal Code, Soliciting specifies "accosting," others; Trespassing requires prior arrest convictions at that specific location; Loitering is an intent crime that requires priors and conjunctive unlawful acts: I have never engaged in any of the aforementioned behaviors, nor do I have any prior convictions, at any location or at all: I do not meet the criteria for arrest.

Making a 911 call in the absence of a crime is a violation of law: The harassment that I have been subjected to by and at the behest of your employees is criminally and civilly actionable, and, at 65 years of age, these relentless attacks are exacerbating my failing health.

As a Buddhist nun, I have a duty to make myself available for interaction with other Buddhists: Mom's is in Little Saigon, a Buddhist community. I have enjoyed a reciprocal relationship with the Market for several years. The responding officers parroted your security guard, "The owner does not want you here." 'The owner,' has no authority over my comings and goings; my actions are constitutionally protected, what the owner "wants" is not a consideration. When your guards order me to leave under threat of arrest they are in violation of the California Civil Code section 45: Defamation of Character. You can avoid the up coming lawsuit, (in which you, the owner, and the Santa Ana Police Department would be named as Defendants), for monetary damages, by acquainting yourself with the laws and rights that apply in pubic places, before violating those laws; for example the public thoroughfare is not 'private property,' regardless of who owns title to the strip mall land. Regardless of what the 'owner wants' any one on American soil is guaranteed freedom of access to, and transit to and from, places that are open to the public. The right to 'refuse service,' which is also frequently used to bluff individuals into leaving, via intimidation, is not a right at all, in fact invoking it is a violation of law. Many myths and misunderstandings about the law, as commonly misinterpreted by security guards, property owners, and the police, can be Googled on the internet.

By familiarizing yourself with the prohibition in America, against enlisting the police to enforce property owner demands and merchant edicts, and by becoming acquainted with applications of law that do not apply to the public thoroughfare, you can prevent an inevitable law suit. By acquainting yourself with the Nuremberg Trials that eventualized in laws prohibiting security personal and law enforcement officers from harassing individuals with the assertion, 'just following orders; just doing my job," you will avoid breaking the law.

I am a civil rights lawyer, I have never lost a case. Upon your request I will provide you with pictures of the various criminals who frequent the Mom Supermarket strip mall parking lot: A professional security company should have a file on hand of the criminals at issue, which you should have obtained from publicly accessible police arrest records, acquired via a simple Google search by address, of the location at issue, as a precaution in order to avoid targeting, harassing, and defaming persons, such as myself, who do not meet the criteria for arrest.

Security is not a word based profession, I have yet to encounter a security company that does it's homework. Several local security companies have attempted to hire me as a legal consultant: No thank you, if you do not do the research yourself, it will have no effect; because, you will not apply it to your employee training program. I have distributed written pamphlets for mall security guards, my observation is that they don't read them, nor do the property owners who use their security services, until the judge orders them to pay damages for their violations of law.

Thank You, Nancy Wood (picture attached, right)

 Additionally I had sent Landhousing Security the following letter after the arrest of April 23, 2017:

4/28/17 at 12:26 PM 

• From: nancy wood

• To: landhousingsecurity@gmail.com

BUSINESS OWNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFUSE SERVICE BASED ON ARBITRARY REASONS: SPURNED PATRONS ARE ALLOWED TO SUE.

Because of the fraudulent 911 emergency call, made on March 23, 2017, from Mom Supermarket at 5111 W. Edinger Street, in Santa Ana, California, Nancy Wood was unlawfully arrested, and defamed. The officers arrested Nancy Wood for felony trespassing, under California Penal Code section 602 (T) (1) and (2) and threatened to arrest her again if she returned, insisting that the Market has the “Right” to refuse service to anyone as well as the right to evict anyone from the property, further asserting, “The property owner does not want you here,” and stating that the Market had signed 'citizen arrest' forms.

REFUSAL OF SERVICE IS NOT A “RIGHT:” IT IS HARASSMENT; RETAIL STORES ARE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS:

California has statutorily adopted the common law of England as the rule for decisions: Which states, “A private owner of a public amusement is not allowed to exclude any person for 'any reason,” see, e.g., Donnell v. The State, 48 Miss. 661, 681 (1873)

EDICTS ARE NOT POLICIES: Policies that would allow business owners to refuse service based on arbitrary reasons are not enforceable nor endorsed by City officials: Because spurned patrons are allowed to sue.

The strip mall property owner, Mom Market, the Arresting SAPD Officers, and Landhousing Security, invoked Edicts in the absence of a crime, and, in the furtherance of the crime of Disturbance of the Peace, and applied the Edicts at the expense of Nancy Wood, therefore invoking a pretextual 'right 'of refusal of service' cross purposed to banish observers of parking lot criminal activity, making the 'right' of refusal of service a criminal Edict: One must conclude that the purpose of the Unlawful Arrest was to further criminal rackets in the parking lot from which police officers, security guards, and store managers receive kick-backs. .

In the absence of proper procedure the police and merchants effectively have the sovereign authority to threaten and harm individuals who are unresponsive to personal demands, thereby extracting habitual obeisance rather than civil obedience. The Fourteenth Amendment “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual... to engage in any of the common occupations of life... ." Meyer v Nebraska (1923) -Justice McReynolds. Nancy Wood is a strip mall portrait artist who practices Tibetan Buddhism.

RELIEF / RECOVERY OF DAMAGES

Federal Code section 1983: allows for the recovery of monetary damages in the amount of three million dollars.

Santa Ana Police Department, Mom Supermarket, and Landhousing Security, without cause or any criteria for an arrest, and in the absence of a police investigation, for a violation of California Penal Code 602 (t) (1) and (2), a felony, having found no violation of law, recklessly confabulated a violation of law where there is none and postulated a trespass violation without basis, having found no evidence of any violation of the laws of the state of California by Nancy Wood, and did charges and arrest her, in the absence of a crime or criteria for a violation of law, did maliciously Defame Nancy Wood with the aspersion that she met the criteria for a felony arrest, and did reiterate aspersions in publicly accessible Police Department Reports, tape recordings and Citizen's Arrest forms, security logs, and employee reports. A reputation is a valuable asset under the law. Nancy Wood’s individual interests in her reputation was harmed, without justification, by the Arrest, of April 23, 2017, in response to the fraudulent 911 call, at the Mom's Market 5111 W. Edinger Street, in Santa Ana, California, where she draws, engages in assembly, speech, and practices religious freedom, with Buddhist friends, and has shopped for three years, without issue or incident. Nancy Wood has no convictions, no history of mental illness, and no history of drug or alcohol abuse.

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.

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.”

The specific intent to interfere with the owner’s property, has to be based on more than imaginings. To meet the criteria for a Trespass arrest, the perpetrator must intend to interfere with the property owner's right to operate the business, or, deliberately damage property, or, live on the property without permission, or, refuse to leave after having been convicted of a crime at that location, or refuse to leave at closing time when asked to. Those acts are only violations as long as the act was committed deliberately. The fact that of peaceable assembly on a property with friends, conversing and making purchases: renders California Penal Code section 602: Trespass, inapplicable in light of lawful purpose and conduct under Constitutionally protected Freedoms, of Transit, Speech, Expression, Assembly, and Religious Freedom (Buddhist's are required to accept alms for a period of two hours every day, distinguishable from Soliciting, in that the recipient of alms does not “accost” the benefactor, but rather lawfully “sits or stands by a wayside,” awaiting benevolence. First Amendment rights belong to everyone, citizens, and non-citizens, solicitors, artists, observers, clerics, and shoppers. Loitering is an 'intent' crime, a violation requires a criminal act. 

EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

 

Senate Bill 411, August 11, 2015: Right to Record Act: Allows to record Police.

When Plaintiff suspected foul play her voice activated tape recorder allowed her to obtain documentation of all of the encounters at issue:

CRC section 203.5; 2.1040; Evidence Code section 260. "...taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment. -Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber

The “Right to Record Act” clarifies civilians’ right to videotape and photograph police officers in public. That bill, SB 411, was introduced by Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat from Los Angeles: The people of the State of California do enact as follows: Section 69 (b) The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation..

'Right' of Refusal of Service:

Regardless of a posted policy businesses do NOT have the right to refuse service; A policy is not 'automatic,' rather, it must be in writing posted where customers can see it, prior to entering the premises: A copy must be filed with the Police Department and the City Attorney. The conjuring of a policy where there is none, by Store managers and or property owners, is termed a 'trap,' and is an unlawful deception, under the law. The Mom Supermarket has no posted nor filed policy, therefor, Santa Ana Officers, acting in violation of Nancy Wood's civil rights, at the behest of the Property Manager, and Landhousing Security perpetrated fraud in the form of Defamation of Character; depriving Wood of her reputation, resulting in a violation of Civil Code section 45, having created the impression that Nancy Wood engages in criminal activity, depicting her in a manner publicly defamatory pursuant to Civil Code section 45, have "exposed her to hatred contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...." Defendants published the Defamatory statements in accounts accessible to the general public, establishing harm as a result.

INTENT TO HARM

The Santa Ana Police Officers who responded to the fraudulent 911 call can and should be charged with a misdemeanor violation of CPC 410 (Refusal to suppress a disturbance of the peace); Mom Supermarket, and Landhousing Security can and should be charged with a violation of CPC 403 (interfering with a lawful assembly), and also, charged for attempting to provoke an arrest in the absence of a crime, 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.)

Wood has and will continue to suffer from mental distress, humiliation, embarrassment, fear, and defamation of her character and reputation, as a result of the unlawful arrest, having been exposed to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy...." pursuant to California Civil Code section 45.

The Officer failed to protect Wood before during and after the violation of her Constitutionally guaranteed right of Assembly; the Officer facilitated a Disturbance of the Peace, violating CPC 410.

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.

The City of Santa Ana, Mom Supermarket, and Landhousing Security are without a defense of interest in free speech or justification where the communication is about a matter of public concern. Their right to freedom of speech and public protection does not tip the balance of Nancy Wood’s right to protect her good name. The arrest was unlawful and improper and ran afoul of Defamation law Civil Code section 45.

The particular occasion, during which the unlawful arrest was made, offers no immunity: Privileges are Conditional, or Qualified: Officers are not entitled to Conditional Privilege without proving that they meet the conditions established for Conditional Privilege. Generally, in order for Conditional Privilege to apply, they must believe that a statement is true and, depending on the jurisdiction, either have reasonable grounds for believing that the statement was true or not have acted recklessly in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the statement.

Harassment

The Officer's assertion, “You are trespassing,” is designed to harass and intimidate the target, where none of the criteria for an arrest were met. That the Officer continually reiterated the assertion and made the arrest, knowing full well that no criteria were 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. Evidence exonerating; witness testimony, was knowingly and recklessly disregarded at the scene, in a bad faith attempt to deprive Nancy Wood of due process rights, toward unjustly subjugating her to the judicial process.

The officer had no probable cause to believe a felony or a misdemeanor was being committed, no misdemeanor was committed in the officer’s presents and his duty to respond to the breach of peace that occurred was ignored; if not perpetrated, facilitated, and escalated, by the Officer. The Officers, the Market, and the Security Company had personal knowledge of Nancy Wood's lack of a criminal history, there was no cause based on her history nor indicated by circumstances at the scene, for the arrest, and no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. The arresting officers exhibited willful and wanton misconduct equating to deliberate indifference under federal civil rights standards precluding immunity. “Acted recklessly with indifference” in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the property manager, and security guards accusations.

Neither The City, the Police Department, nor arresting Officers are 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 Officers; none are not shielded from liability.

According to Officer Gutierez of the Santa Ana Police Department Internal Affairs Department, “I don't know this cop who arrested you, he is new, a trianee, cops are not allowed to drop the sub sections of the codes he dropped sub-section (2) and he converted the charge to a misdemeanor, it's a felony not a misdemeanor. Lets call it a procedural violation, not misconduct, he is being trained.” Whatever the category of error, Nancy Wood's civil rights were violated, she was unlawfully arrested, booked, and spent four hours in police custody,

Statement of Nancy Wood:
On April 23, 2017, the Mom Supermarket manager, (the property owner's brother) called the police on a 911 call to arrest me, in the absence of a crime or violation of law. On April 26, 2017, the security guard of Mom's Supermarket informed me that the property owner and Market manager know they made a mistake by having me arrested under California Penal Code section 602 (t) when they realized that I can't be prosecuted for a violation separable from, sub-section (2): Which states that the violation applies only to criminals who were convicted of a crime at that specific location, (I have no convictions at any location) instead the property owner, Market manager, and Landhousing security plan to testify that they meant to arrest me for a violation of section (k) because I stood on the grass and thereby had deliberately destroyed the landscaping:
There is no grass, only dirt; the property is landscaped with redwood chips, most of which have blown away. If the property owner watered the islands he could grow grass there, but he doesn't, people use it as a path to and from their cars, it's always filled with trash and cigarette butts, because husbands stand there, chain smoking, while they wait for their wives. Employees sit under the trees on their breaks, smoking. No one is allowed to smoke in front of entrance to the market because that is where the propane tanks are sold. According to CPC section 602: Trespass: ...every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or by the person in lawful possession.
'Strip mall' does not fall under the category of 'lands;' a Strip Mall is an urban commercial property open to the public, as the public thoroughfare: “Lands” are private farmlands, or lumber, which may or may not contain residences, and may or may not be open to the public, such as a farm with a farmhouse and a fruit stand. Mom Supermarket strip mall has a nursery / flower shop but is not private rural agricultural land: “Lands,” are places where “signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands...” see section (l) (1):
(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or of the person in lawful possession, and
(1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands...

The Market manager and the strip mall parking lot property owner, apparently got together with the police and parking lot security to concoct their story claiming that they had asked me to leave their “lands,” and therefore the above trespassing code applies (having realized that section (t) for which they had me arrested, is inapplicable). To them it makes perfect sense, especially after the police trotted out, hauled me off to jail, and said it's a done deal, in fact, the police criminally harassed me with an unlawful arrest. The prosecution will claim the language barrier; the cops will claim that they are allowed to make mistakes and are allowed to lie, and that it was training day; procedural errors are allowed. The lower court criminal judge will not buy this elaboration and the case will be dismissed. If it is ever actually filed; most cases that are factually erroneous are tossed out by the DA: For example a ticket that excerpts inseparable code sections: (in this case the arresting officer left off (2) of subdivion (t): The part that states one would have to have prior convictions at that location to meet the criteria for arrest (2) is not separable from subdivision (t). How convenient and how creative of the arresting officer's Corporal to insist he leave off the part of the criteria that I do not meet; it will cost him his badge.

To add insult to injury: The cops informed me that they are not in trouble for making a False Arrest, because they are not prosecuting the case, rather Landhousing Security, Mom;s Market manager, the property owner and his lawyer are prosecuting the case, as citizens making a citizen's arrest (see tape recording). The arresting officer said that the fact of a Citizen's Arrest form filed by the property owner means that the DA, the Police Department, and the City are not responsible for arresting me. (They love to say that hoping that the arrestee will just give up). It was the Santa Ana Jail where I was in custody for four hours and where I was booked for a felony criminal charge, CPC 602 (t), and it was an SAPD Officer who hand cuffed me, and wrote the citation under the City of Santa Ana jurisdiction and authority, and it was four SAPD officers who failed to investigate the allegation of a violation of CPC 602 (t) when they charged me. 

The police had one of their cooperatives, at Mary's Kitchen, after the arrest; sit next to me, ask me about the charge, and then wail in a voice that makes 'The Nanny' sound tranquil, “Oh, No! No, Nancy, you see it wasn't the police who arrested you it was the Citizen who signed the complaint. You won't get a public defender! There is nothing that you can do, you are guilty.” 

As a lawyer I find that there is plenty that I can do, which is why I have never lost a case, and I will not lose this one. Actually, it was the Santa Ana police who arrested me, it is The City of Santa Ana who is prosecuting though the District Attorney, and I have the right to a Public Defender, the fact of the police demanding that the Owner sign the citizen arrest form, changes nothing, Citizen's Arrest forms can not be sighed other than in the presents of a police officer. 

In the case at issue, a police badge is equivalent to a magnifying glass, law abiding citizens represent an ant hill, they call their path of destruction 'training day.'

I returned to the Market on April 25, 2017, to give the manager and parking lot security guard a copy of this analysis of the law, since they had acted in total disregard of the law. Both refused, to accept this document, as if to stonewall me. Adding rudeness to stupidity does no make ignorance of the law an excuse. I returned again on the next day for the ordinary purpose of buying groceries, getting a fried fish, and meeting with Buddhists; the Landhousing guard asked the Market guard to sign a citizen arrest form so that he could call the police to arrest me, the market security guard said no. The Landhousing security guard called the police, they also said no thanks. I met with several nuns, conversing and exchanging news of upcoming events, I left at about 7:PM, oddly the Landhousing parking lot security guard was no where to be seen on the property from 5:PM until 7:PM when I left.

I, NANCY WOOD, DECLARE under penalty of perjury that this entire declaration is true and correct:

April 28, 2017

Nancy Wood ________________________________

Mr. Corona, was still blustering, he always talks in a steady stream of conjecture, lies, and intimidation said, "Well, you see, it's like any code, where there is subsection a, b, c, or d, you know and so subdivision (2) is not attacked to subsection (1)..." I replied, "OK, there is no a, b, c, in Code section 602 (t) which has no subsections at all, because (t) is the subdivision of code 602, subdivision (t) has no subdivisions,it is a subdivision, nor does it have any sub-sections, there are two parts of subdivision (t), part (1) the law, and part (2) the criteria for a violation of (1) the law, there are no subsections; no a, no b, nor c. I'm not saying you are stupid, the language of the legislature is specific in how the author of a code is to write the code, regarding subdivisions and subsections, as a layperson you might not know all of that, or you might be talking from your imagination, rather than flat out lying, but the police do know how codes are written and how to read them, so maybe you should not be so easily led by dirt-bags-in-blue, believe me they are keeping you out of the loup, for a reason: They are going to use you to deflect their culpability for perjury; Perjury is considered a crime against justice, since lying under oath compromises the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. You are being used to enact malicious prosecution. They don't think that any of this is going to come back on them, because, you and the property owner's brother made the Citizen's Arrests, you signed, the cops are just doing their job, they think that Landhousing security and the Market will foot the bill in a law suit, and they will for at least one million dollars, but it will cost the cops three times that. Because cops are not allowed to shrug their shoulders and point at you, after all the cop told you to sigh the Citizen Arrest form, the cop led you." Corona said, "Well, nothing is going to happen to me right, you aren't suing me, you are suing the company I work for, not me?" I responded, "No, not you, what your company will do regarding you is up to them, I don't know." Corona smirked, he is kind of a blustering smerker. When he gets fired from security work, for conspiracy to enact a malicious prosecution, which he did, with the officers and the Market landowner and the landowerner's brother, Mr. Corona's next career downhill, might be as a boiler room bill collector, all of that smirking bluster will pay off there.
Corona was still blustering, "Well what about what the Corporal said, did you ask another lawyer?" I answered "I know about that corporal, I have filed against him with Internal Affairs before, and yes I have asked many lawyers about my interpretation of the code (particularly the ACLU lawyers who work on County cases, and the FBI who could take SAPD badges today for witness tampering on those cases, since I am trying to testify for the County but these bogus arrests are interfering), I am right, you are wrong, no one has ever been convicted on 602 (t) in the absence of priors, because a conviction requires priors committed at that specific location; that is the arrest/conviction criteria specified in code section  602 subdivisions (t), I have no convictions at any location. For the charge to stand you have to prove that I have prior convictions at that location." I told him that there are no alternative charges that could be applicable instead (I'm sure that the officers have or will try to weasel alternatives into the picture. Nothing else fits, not even the kitchen sink. Even if they realize their mistake before court the cops can't simply reshuffle the deck and charge me with an alternative, like say, for example; felony vandalism, or some other subdivision of the trespassing code, because none of it fits. Someone who has no history of convictions is not a suspect for a violation of law, in the absence of a witness, particularly not a Landhousing security witnesses with their history of perjury. All I would have to do is play a few minutes of any tape of Corona and the judge will through up his hands, 'what a sack of crap.' The police did not see me violate a law, I asked them during both arrests, what law I was in violation of and in both arrests the police state loud and clear, that the owner's brother, and Mr. Corona, signed the Citizen Arrest forms, insisting (see tapes) that I violated 602 (t) trespass, they did not say that they suspected I was engaged in criminal activity, rather, they specified that they were arresting me for a violation of CPC 602 (t) Trespass. Thereby making a factually baseless arrest, that may not be prosecuted. Period

After the fact they will state that I panhandled, but as I told Landhousing security, particularly Mr. Corona, the suspicion of a crime has to be based on a violation of a code; the panhandling code states that panhandling is defined as "accosting" another. I just stand there, I do not talk to anyone. During the second arrest the officer blustered, "What are you here for just to make a statement about this, about your civil rights, is that why you come here, just for that?" I said, "No, I am not making an exclusive statement, not about "this," I'm buying a fish, and at eight I am meeting my friends, I just met with one of my art students, and..." He cut me off, he snapped, "I don't have time to listen to your agenda. You don't have any money for fish, you don't have any art students...You talk to Buddhist don't you!" I said, "Of course I talk to other Buddhist, when they talk to me, I'm a nun, the fact of our meeting here is Constitutionally protected, under speech, religion, assembly, what is my crime?" He said, "Trespassing," he didn't notice the voice activated tape recorder around my neck for some odd reason. Maybe he wanted to redefine 'accosting,' to somehow mean 'responding to fellow Buddhists.' In any event the judge has 'scene it all,' and will think that Landhousing Security and the Cops are bat crap crazy for harassing me. I had cautioned the trainees who arrested me on April 23rd, not to write a novella, as a police report, because judges suspect drug abuse when cops do that, and the judge might confiscate badges. The officers said that they would be succinct. They were both very young.

Mr. Corona told me again, "I can't allow you to be here! You are not a customer!" I told Mr. Corona that in America everyone has the right of 'access,' to the judiciary; legal recourse. I pointed out that I was waiting for a fired fish, that I had been a regular customer for three years; he told me to leave anyway, "wait at the park." Which reminded me that John was at the park, and so I went to find him, while my fish was frying, but John wasn't there. Before I went to look for him I read the code out loud again:

CPC: “Subdivisions shall not apply to persons on the 

premises who are engaging in activities protected by 

the California or United States Constitution, 

or to persons who are on the premises at the request 

of a resident or management and who are not loitering 

or otherwise suspected of violating or actually violating 

any law or ordinance. 

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.

I don't know how stupid you would have to be to conspire to subject someone to malicious prosecution on tape, especially when the law is so black and white, but, Mr. Corona, did exactly that: He told me that it didn't matter what the criteria of the trespass code is because the police had already charged me, and "...they are going to get a conviction on you for the first trespassing charge so that by the second charge you will be in violation of the code; when is your arraignment?" I said, "June 6, 2017, on my birthday." He asked, "When were you arrested, what are the dates?" I answered, "April 23, and 30, 2017," He smirked and announced proudly, "Well, you will have a conviction on the first arrest by the second arraignment, and you will be convicted on both of them then." I told him that the arrests will be consolidated and dismissed. He didn't seem to understand that 602 (t) is a felony, it would require a jury trial at one hundred thousand dollars per day, so, duh, that is why people who do not have priors are not thrown into the system as if on a test basis, where felonies are concerned, felonies always state the criteria within the subdivision so that STUPED cops have it black and white and will not make stupid mistakes; like this one. Corona doesn't get that the stipulation of convictions in the criteria have to precede the arrest, not come along after the fact of a False Arrest. Judges hate cops because they make up the rules as they go, while judges are accountable to what the real, not make believe, rules are stated in the codes.

Fortunately I taped Mr. Corona's outstanding examples of pure conspiracy to perpetrate Malicious Prosecution to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime; conspirator Corona, need only show up for the pretrial of the Federal Case that I am bringing against Landhousing, the Cops, and the Property Owner (his Brother), to confirm that the voice on the recorder is his, and even if he lies that it is not, he is toast, because the other voices on the tape are of the arresting officers voices, on April 30, 2017, telling Mr. Corona to sign the Citizen Arrest form: There is no denying that it's him, even if he decides to continue perjuring himself, nothing will spare him from a conviction, and probably a ten year sentence. Additionally, I have a tape of Mr. Corona subsequently stating that the officers forced him to sign the Citizen Arrest form on April 30, 3017. Forced or not, he signed it, and regardless of his intentions, he signed his name, he did not sign 'Under Duress.' If he had, he would be exonerated. Mr. Corona signed of his own free will, he, and the two arresting officers of April 30, 2017, subjected me to the legal process in the absence of a crime, cause, criteria or suspicion of a crime; what they did to me is criminally and civilly actionable under at least five causes of action, all meeting the standard for treble damages as egregious, particularly in both arrests, because I was in custody for more than three hours. The usual damages request is one million on Federal Code section 1983: False Arrest, and it is invariably tripled by the judge.

I pointed out. to Mr. Corona, that the police can't get a conviction on me for either the 602 charge of April 23rd or of the 30th, since I do not meet the criteria, his hope of leapfrogging convictions is useless. I don't know if Mr. Corona is genuinely stupid or if he sincerely believes his own bullshit. Here is how it will appear in the civil suit:
 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF / RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
Mall portrait artist, Plaintiff Nancy Wood, is seeking recovery of monetary damages in the amount of one million dollars,  Plaintiff requests that the Defendants be ordered to pay the amount of damages
Defendants without cause or any criteria for an arrest, and in the absence of an investigation, for a violation of California Penal Code 602 (t) (1) and (2), a felony, having found no violation of law, recklessly confabulated a violation of law, having found no evidence of any violation of law by Plaintiff, Defendant guaranteed charges against Plaintiff, and insisted that she would be convicted, in the absence of a crime. Defendants did maliciously Defame Plaintiff with the aspersion that she met the criteria for a felony arrest, and reiterated aspersions in publicly accessible Police Department Events Reports, tape recordings and Citizen's Arrest forms which they submitted to Mall employees. A reputation is a valuable asset under the law. Plaintiff Nancy Wood’s individual interests in her reputation was harmed without justification, by the Unlawful Arrests, of April 23, and 30, 2017, when Plaintiff was charged with felony arrest, two times, in response to a fraudulent 911 call, ,' at the Mall where she draws, meets with friends to partake of the enjoyments of life, and has shopped for three years.
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
Senate Bill 411, August 11, 2015: Right to Record Act: Allows to record Police.
4. When Plaintiff suspected foul play her voice activated tape recorder allowed her to obtain documentation of all of the encounters at issue:
CRC section 203.5; 2.1040; Evidence Code section 260. "...taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment. -Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber

The “Right to Record Act” clarifies civilians’ right to videotape and photograph police officers in public. That bill, SB 411, was introduced by Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat from Los Angeles: The people of the State of California do enact as follows: Section 69 (b) The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation...

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE EXHIBITS / Expectation of Privacy

California Rules of Court section 203.5: Electronic recordings offered in evidence – transcripts.

According to Pennsylvania v. Ritchei (1987) 480 U.S. 30, 107 S.Ct. 989, 1000, 94 L.Ed.2d 40, 56, infra, Sec.6 Criminal defendants have a “right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.” People v. Mizer (1961) 195 C.A.2d 261, 15 C.R. 272; Caldwell v. Caldwell (1962) 204 C.A.2d 819,22C.R. 854.. (204 C.A.2d 821; see 9 Cal. Proc. (4^th), Attorneys, Sec. 75.)
On July 7, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler released an opinion advising a state legislator that, contrary to the claims of Harford County State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly, a traffic stop is not an instance where a police officer can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.

On September 27, 2010, criminal charges against Graber were dropped. The court threw out the charge of "recording illegal activity" on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional, noting that "the video taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment." The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law does not prohibit recording of voice or sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no legal expectation of privacy. Overall, Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations.

“Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation.”

— Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber

Even more important is the right of protection where Wood's recordings expose a violation of Police Conduct in response to a bogus 911 call.

Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room and public place which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, and such as public restrooms.

'Expectation of privacy' must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.

To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public.

The Officer has no right to the expectation of privacy, regarding the evidence presented in this Claim, the Mall is the public thoroughfare

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT section 203.5: Electronic recordings offered in evidence – transcripts.
Rule 2.1040. Electronic recordings presented or offered into evidence
(a)(b) Transcript of Other electronic recordings
(1) Unless otherwise ordered by the trial judge Except as provided in (2) and (3), 29 before a party may present or offering into evidence any electronic sound or sound-and-video recording not covered under (a), the party must tender provide to the court and to opposing parties a typewritten transcript of the electronic recording. The transcript must be marked for identification. And provide opposing parties with a duplicate of the transcript electronic recording, as defined in Evidence Code section 260., must be filed by the clerk and must be part of the clerk’s transcript in the event of an appeal. The transcript may be prepared by the party presenting or offering the recording into evidence; a certified transcript is not required.For good cause, the trial judge may permit the party to provide the transcript or the duplicate recording at the time the presentation of evidence closes or within five days after the recording is presented or offered into evidence, whichever is later.

There is no factual evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff was in violation of all or any elements of the Code, at issue; moreover the officers observation is not reliable: They could have ascertained the falsity of the charge had they exercised reasonable diligence in performing their duties and not neglected to make a reasonable and necessary factual investigation at the scene of the charge: The purpose of the unlawful arrests was to discover a crime where there was none: Witnesses at the scene; who offered testimony were not interviewed, had an investigation been conducted the detention would have ended there. The end that the Santa Ana Police Department, the Landhousing Security, and the Mom Supermarket seeks is not a laudable one, in this case, and it does not justify unlawful actions by law enforcement. 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, indicates that, rather than intending to commit a violation of California Penal Code section 602 (t) (1) and 2): Aggravated Trespass, Plaintiff was shopping, there is no law prohibiting shopping, Defendants purpose; to conjure evidence to present at trial, for a crime that they knew full well had not been committed, and to exclude exonerating evidence, is a lawless venture dependent on the courts endorsement, and actions as law enforcer, evidence gatherer, and judge to the arrest at issue. A violation of law had been committed; a racketeer had tried to steal a purse, but instead of hearing Wood's complaint about what she had witnessed, Defendants constructed a phantasmagorical crime denouncing Wood --a humble 64 year old nun, where she gathered with fellow seniors from the Buddhist temple-- as a repeat offender, a felony trespasser, a crime falsely attributed to Wood,  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: Shopping is lawful, free speech is lawful, freedom of assembly is lawful.

This is actually the third time that the same SAPD coporal who refused to call his sergeant to the scene of the arrest on April 23, 2017, responded to a bogus 911 call, or conjured a non existent call, by harassing and defaming Wood, in violation of her civil rights:

CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGES

The particular occasion during which the statement was made offers no immunity. These privileges are known as conditional, or qualified, privileges. The City is not entitled to a conditional privilege without proving that they meet the conditions established for the privilege. Generally, in order for a privilege to apply, they must believe that a statement is true and, depending on the jurisdiction, either have reasonable grounds for believing that the statement was true or not have acted recklessly in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the statement. The Corporal's assertion, that Wood will be arrested for panhandling, for loitering, and for trespassing, is designed to harass and intimidate the target where none of the criteria for an arrest are met. The Corporal's egregious abuse of authority under color of law, in the form of malicious defamatory harassment and intimidation intended to criminalize Wood to the public and cause humiliation, and damage her reputation, is civilly actionable under California Civil Code 45: Defamation of Character.

Police departments have thorough familiarity with and access to arrest and conviction records: They generate them. SAPD knew that Nancy Wood has no convictions, and is not a candidate for arrest.

The Officer was simply too lazy to act legitimately: He hoodwinked unwilling customers and passers by as participants, in a ruse to humiliate Wood and to impeach Wood's credibility, and carried out on his behalf, so that she would be removed; silencing future observations of racketeering and misconduct.

The Corporal wants harassment of Wood to serve as a a criminal conviction in the absence of a crime. What more fraudulent and defamatory act could a police department undertake?

Wood has no criminal associations, no history of mental illness, and no convictions, nor history of drug or alcohol abuse, what she does have is a history of winning in court against dirty cops: Which makes her disfavored by the police department: Her wins expose cops who perpetrate Unlawful Arrest; Police Misconduct; Perjured Statements in Police Reports; and Police Brutality.'

The depiction of Wood as a criminal constitutes Defamation: That it was accomplished by a City employee, a Santa Ana Police Department Corporal constitutes Abuse of Authority Under Color of Law, Harassment, and Unlawful Detention: The Corporal hoodwinked the public into perceiving Wood as a candidate for arrest: Announcing “...the reality is that it's time to move on, unless you plan on being arrested for trespassing... As I said ma'am, I could just come and arrest you for panhandling...I'll just have one of the officers come out and grab you OK, not a problem ma'am. OK?” the Corporal thereby defamed Wood and subjected Wood to Unlawful Detention, Harassment, Civil Rights Violations, and threatened her with arrest in the absence of a crime, with forethought of malice, in order to humiliate Wood in the form of Defamation of Character.

Wood writes winning trial briefs for homeless people who have been unlawfully arrested, she did her internship in law at CPSR, a Stanford think tank, she illustrates her briefs with drawings of Police Misconduct, her evidence exhibits often include videos, drawings, photos, tape recordings and transcripts of felonious misconduct: She has never lost a case; several of them have lost their badges. Clearly the unlawful detention at issue, is a retaliatory reprisal for her efforts to fight dirty cops in court.

The Corporal and Officers perpetuated a ruse; to push Wood on her 

way, with the objective of preventing her from making observations and 

consequent complaints regarding their racketeering activities. The first 

Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, 

Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition, was passed by Congress on 

September 25, 1789 and Ratified on December 15, 1791, assuring that 

persecution, of this kind, by the Corporal and his cooperatives, for 

exposing violations of law, is actionable under the highest law in the land: 

the Constitution. No one gets to push a customer out in the absence of an 

unlawful act, nor for stating facts in a complaint, court case, or criminal 

prosecution: Not in America. Nor is it lawful to paint Wood, publicly, as a 

criminal: There was no violation of law; no criteria for a “future” trespass 

arrest based on panhandling, or loitering was met: Wood's Constitutional

rights have been violated: The Corporal has broken Federal Law, by 

enacting a reprisal, in retaliation for Wood's opinion expressed toward 

successfully prosecuting the police, and defending the victims of police 

misconduct.  

Report of a Crime: Fraudulent 911 Call, perpetrated by Johnathan Powell. Professional Standards Division Internal Affairs Complaint: Harassment / Unlawful Detention / Defamation of Character perpetrated by unknown SAPD Corporal. Santa Ana Police Department, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Ca., 92701 Complainant: Nancy Carolyn Wood 517 W. Struck Street, Orange Ca., 92867 (nancywoodemail@email.com) Today's Date: January 7, 2016. Complainant's Name: Nancy Wood. Complainant's Home Address: 517 W. Struck Street, Orange, Ca. 92867. Complainant's Home Phone: No Phone. Alternative Phone: No Phone. E-mail: nancywoodemail@email.com Date of Occurrence: February 6, 2016. Time of Occurrence: Approximately 6:00 PM Location of Occurrence: Mom Supermarket, 5111 Edinger Ave., Santa Ana, Ca. 92704 Officer you are complaining about: Unidentified Corporal. Circumstances Surrounding Complaint: Officer's response to baseless 911 call. Conduct Leading to Complaint: Harassment. An unidentified Corporal, unlawfully detained Nancy Wood, in the absence of a crime, and without conducting an investigation, the Corporal threatened Wood with arrest for a violation of CPC 602: Trespass, and CPC 647: Soliciting, knowing that no criteria were met for a violation of law. Responding to a 911 call, made by Johnathan Powell posing as a security guard, the Corporal insisted that Wood met the criteria for a Trespass  arrest and a Soliciting arrest; that Wood, could and would be arrest for trespassing, a violation of CPC section 602: Trespass, and for panhandling a violation of CPC section 647: Soliciting.  The Corporal Defamed Wood, demanding that Wood leave, in violation of Wood's First Amendment right of Assembly. The Corporal endorsed an allegation, sieved into existence by the 911 caller, Johnathan Powell, a known drug addict, repeat violent offender, and career criminal, who made the fraudulent 911 call, in which he stated falsely that he is a security guard, a confabulation that appears to have been conspired on the spot as a pretext to force an unlawful arrest in the absence of a crime. Complainants Evidence Exhibit I: Transcript of Tape 160206_1055: At the Arrest Scene. SAPD Corporal: How are you? Nancy Wood: Fine how are you? SAPD Corporal: Fine. Nancy Wood: Good. SAPD Corporal: We got a call from security; grab your stuff and get out of here. Nancy Wood: OK. SAPD Corporal: Are you going to grab your stuff? Nancy Wood: (to Officer) Yes. (to security guard) The police said that you called to have me removed? Security Guard: No. If they actually do something, you answer to them, we don't know who called? (Officer does not respond.) Nancy Wood: (to guard) I don't know. (to Officer) He (security guard) said he didn't call. SAPD Corporal: I'm responding to a call for service. I have bigger and better things to do than come over here to a lady who is sitting in front of the store with a black blanket (red and black raincoat). But the reality is that it's time to move on, unless you plan on being arrested for trespassing. California Penal Code Section 602 — “Criminal Trespass” involves more than mere unauthorized entry onto the property of another. It also requires specific intent to interfere with, or to damage, the owner’s property right or the property itself; and actual interference with or actual damage to the property. Penal Code Section 602 (k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. To prove that one is guilty of “trespass,” the prosecutor has to prove the following facts or elements: Firstly the prosecutor must prove “intent.” In that context 'intent' means the intent to purposely commit the act of Trespass,  and to intend the consequences of the act (i.e. interference with shopping endeavors, and the store's business of serving customers) There is no valid cause to suspect or anticipate a violation of law: The Corporal produced no evidence that anything like that really happened, nor did he assert a motive. He didn't investigate the supposed report of an incident of panhandling CPC 647, “accosting” people, he did not verify the legitimacy of the 911 call, nor did he make contact with the caller (pictured). The officer did not talk to witnesses who could have corroborated the 911 caller's story, or offer a motive for why such a call would have been made. He simply pulled the violation of law out of his hat, like a big bunny, which is good enough for 'Abracadabra Law Enforcement' but has no more credibility than if he waved a magic wand over Wood three times and proclaimed, while clicking his heals, 'You are going to jail, you are going to jail, you are going to jail!' Wood is not a candidate for arrest under California Penal Code section 602: Trespass, having met none of the criteria for the charge, willfully or otherwise. The Officer's demand; that Wood needs to “leave,” is an egregious violation of law, since it violates her First Amendment right of Assembly and, because he “(has) been doing this for twenty years. That's what I do.” Penal Code section 602: Trespass, (t) sub-section (1) and (2) which specifies that in order to be arrested on a charge of trespassing Wood would have to have prior convictions at that location; Wood has no convictions at any location. Nancy Wood: Yes, a lot of times when you get a call it's a drug addict or a drunk, or it's somebody who is just... SAPD Corporal: I'm not telling you what your job is, I'd appreciate you not telling me mine, I've been doing this for twenty years. That's what I do. Nancy Wood: Yes, but I'm just suggesting, that because it happens a lot, maybe it's John Powell, or, some other drug addict calling, that you should investigate, that is what police do usually. SAPD Officer: As I said ma'am, I could just come and arrest you for panhandling, but the reality is that I have better things to do, I'm trying to get out of here. Nancy Wood: Well, clearly in order to be violating 602 or panhandling under section 647, I would have had to have accosted somebody, but you haven't explained to me who called and why. SAPD Officer: Yes I did, I said it was the off duty security guard ma'am, so you can be on your way it's pretty simple. Nancy Wood: The off duty security guard? SAPD Officer: That is correct ma'am? Nancy Wood: Of the Market? SAPD Officer: I've asked you to leave, and you are not letting me do that, so I'll just have one of the officers come out and grab you OK, not a problem ma'am. OK? Nancy Wood: Yes, I'm trying to respond to you and you keep talking over me without letting me... SAPD Officer: I told you to leave and you said that you were leaving and then you walked over there, just grab your stuff and leave. Nancy Wood: This makes no sense. I really don't think I can do that; you are violating my rights. (First Amendment Right of Assembly.) Did you say that call was Santa Ana? Was that 911 from Santa Ana? I'm going to call dispatch to find out what the problem is.(the dispatcher said that the officer error could be alieviated by telling him that I was waiting for someone, she advised that an assembly required more than two people.) Officer leaves, dispatcher says that there was a call from an unidentified security guard who was shopping, describing a white woman in a black blanket, and “if the second officer shows up (to grab you), just tell him what you are doing there, waiting for someone who is in the store.” Complainants Evidence Exhibit II: Transcript of Tape 160206_1056: After the Corporal leaves. Mom Market Security Guard: What did he want” Nancy Wood: I don't know, I called the police station and I said, did you send an officer to arrest me, and they said no. Security Guard: You have to ask them, because we don't know, they take care of the outside we are only working inside. The city belongs to the police outside. Nancy Wood: Yes. Security Guard: We don't do the police' duty. Nancy Wood: But did you or didn't you call them? Security Guard: No. I didn't, no. Nancy Wood: But he said that it was you. Security Guard: No. it's not my job, he asked me if I called about you, and I said no. Nancy Wood: I think it was a prank, I think it was a prank by one of the drug addicts here, it was probably one of the drug addicts or somebody like that. Security Guard: He asks, who sits here, and who does not sit here at night time, asking for change, and maybe you can sit here but not after dark time. (Police are not allowed to decide who can sit where and when, the Constitution has made the decision for them, the Corporal runs panhandler rackets, he has the junkies call and say that they are security guards, that way observers are eliminated when the Corporal comes to get his cut of the strong arm robberies in the parking lot that John Powell commits, see Evidence Exhibit III: Johnathan Powell, at the scene, with fellow drug addicts) Submitted by Nancy Wood, February 7, 2016