NANCY WOOD: upcoming arrest

• 5/25/17 at 3:28 PM

• From: nancy wood

• To: batkinson@santa-ana.org

 Dear Bryan Atkinson, I'm wondering what rabbit your SAPD officers are going to pull out of their hats this upcoming Sunday. I'm guessing they will recreate the privacy codes in such a way that only someone really stupid can, and attempt to apply a non existent violation to me, yet again:

PROPOSED REQUEST FOR RELIEF / RECOVERY OF DAMAGES

Nancy Wood, a 65 year old mall portrait artist and successful civil rights activist, authors illustrated legal briefs that have enabled pro per defendants to prevail with a 100% success rate of dismissals. Wood Is a long time customer of Mom Supermarket, a kosher Buddhist grocery store, in Little Saigon, at 5111 Edinger Ave., Santa Ana, Ca.

Wood, a model citizen, has no convictions, nor history of mental illness, nor alcohol or substance abuse. Wood has worked for such prestigious institutions and organizations as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, a Stanford think Tank; The Cato Institute, a Washington DC policy institute; The Nyingma Institute Graduate School in Tibetan Studies at UC Berkeley, and affiliate Dharma Publishing Company, traditional Buddhist scholarly books, paper, journals and children's books.

Wood can and will seek recovery of monetary damages: Santa Ana Police officers, Landhousing Security Service guards and Mom Supermarket managers without cause or any criteria for an arrest, and in the absence of an investigation, for a violation of California Penal Code 602 (t), (a felony); the stalker law that allows anyone convicted of assault to be arrested for returning to the scene to carry out the threat. Wood has no convictions. Santa Ana Police officers, Landhousing Security Service guards, and Mom Supermarket managers having found no cause, violation of law, nor criteria for a conviction, did arrest Wood on two occasions and did recklessly confabulate a violation of CPC section 602.1 (a) (the abortion clinic law that prohibits protesters from blocking entrances to commercial establishments) on a third occasion, and postulated, without verification, an act of intimidation, claimed by Landhousing guard Mr. Corona. Without basis, having found no evidence of any violation of any of the laws of the state of California or of the City of Santa Ana, by Wood, SAPD officers guaranteed charges against Wood and charged and arrested Wood, on two occasions in the absence of a crime, and detained Wood on a third occasion with forethought of malice toward gaining a conviction in the absence of a crime, within one thirty day period, while Wood was sitting or standing peacefully, by a wayside on the median, in the Mom Supermarket parking lot, as she has done without incident every Sunday evening, for four years. The Median is commonly used by Market employees on their breaks, and shoppers waiting for their rides, and customers considering what to get for dinner, occasionally talking to a friends in passing, or, in Wood's case, talking to one of her art students, or to a fellow Buddhist shopper at the kosher Market:

Wood was accosted on the median, by Landhousing Security guards and police and taken into custody, in violation of Federal Code section 1983: False Arrest, on three occasions for a period exceeding four hours, thereby subjected unlawfully and egregiously to the legal process in the absence of a crime.

Santa Ana Police officers, Landhousing Security Service guards and Mom Supermarket managers did Harass and Maliciously Defame Plaintiff with the aspersion that she met the criteria for arrest, and reiterated defamatory aspersions in publicly accessible Police Department Arrest and Events Reports, tape recordings and Citizen's Arrest forms submitted by officers to Mall businesses and agents.

A reputation is a valuable asset under the law. Nancy Wood’s individual interests in her reputation was harmed without justification, by the Unlawful Arrests and Detention, in response to fraudulent 911 calls, and reports, on consecutive Sundays,' at the Mall where she has shopped without incident for years, and meets with fellow shoppers similarly occupied in the enjoyments of life. (See tapes, False Arrests April 23, 2017, April 20, 2017, May 21, 2017).

The incarcerations were instigated on the bases of 'evidence' that Landhousing Security Service guards claim is forthcoming. Such as statements from 'obstructed' customers, 'panhandling' victims, and 'intimidated' guards. Wood asserts that such evidence representing confabulations absent basis in fact, consisting of perjured statements to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime, could have no relation to reality, and represent Malicious Prosecution:

There is no factual evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood was in violation of all or any elements of the Codes: 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 and detention 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 arrests and detention would have ended there. The end that the Police, Landhousing Security Service, and 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 four 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, and of section 602.1 (a) intimidation and obstruction of commerce, Plaintiff was shopping, there is no law prohibiting shopping. The 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 arrests and detention at issue. A violation of law had been committed; Wood had been relentlessly harassed by Landhousing Security guards, but instead of hearing Wood's complaint about what she had been sujected to, the police, Landhousing Security, and Mom Supermarket constructed a phantasmagorical crime denouncing Wood, a humble 64 year old nun, as a violent repreat offender, 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 and religion are lawful.

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...

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 from Landhousing Security Service guards, and Mom Supermarket managers, conjuring crimes where there are none.

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 Officers, Landhousing Security Service guards, and Mom Supermarket managers have no right to the expectation of privacy, regarding the evidence presented in this action, 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), before a party may present or offerinto 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.

Previous communication:

• From: nancy wood

• To: batkinson@santa-ana.org landhousingsecurity@gmail.com

 Dear Corporal Bryan Atkinson, (cc Land Housing Security) Once again it was a pleasure meeting you, I am constantly impressed by the heroic appearance and deportment of the Santa Ana police officers. I checked my spam for your recent communication regarding the three Internal Affairs Complaints issued by me, on April 24, 2017, May 1, 2017, and May 1, 2017. I don't have the email to which you referred, at our meeting of May 19, 2017.

Additionally I was unlawfully detained on May 21, 2017; Internal Affairs Complaint submitted on May 22, 2015, re: Officers B. Poling and R. Preito; Unlawful Detention; under the same spurious circumstances that resulted in the two previous Unlawful Arrests, of April 23, and 30, 2017, and the two interim police contacts, at Mom Supermarket, 5111, W. Edingler Ave., ongoing harassment  instigated by Landhousing Security Service of

San Diego,landhousingsecurity@gmail.com.Landhousing Security guard Mr. Corona, and others, continue to harass me in a steady caustic stream at every encounter, in contrast to the gracious reception that I am met with by the Mom Supermarket security guard (tape recordings and transcripts to come).

On May 21, 2017, Landhousing security guard Mr. Corona blustered up to me while I was talking to Ray Fishcher, shouting, "You can't take my picture without my permission!" I had not taken his picture, I told him that I was keeping Ray waiting and that I would talk to him when we got back, and that taking pictures in a public place is lawful. Maybe he is trying to figure out how to twist the law to his purpose of having me arrested for using a camera. However, a short time before that Mr. Corona had asked me to take his picture, and stuck his I-Phone in my face, in an offensive manner: I didn't respond, several times I have asked him to stop harassing me; he stops for a few minutes and then accosts me again, by stating, "I'm not harassing you, you'll have to give me some information..." Regardless of his assertion that harassing me is his job, it's a crime. 

 

HARASSMENT

Harassment is defined as follows:

Code of Civil Procedure - CCP

PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 - 1062.20]

(1) “Course of conduct” is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual...

(2) “Credible threat of violence” is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety ... and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.

Civil code section 646.91

16. (a) ...willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed by another person who has made a credible threat with the intent of placing the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety... within the meaning of Section 646.9.

 Sometimes Mr. Corona verbally attacks me with ridiculous accusations, or belligerent verbal threats (see tapes). Sometimes he asks me inappropriate questions; provoking and confrontational behavior, with a short fuse like that, what is he doing with a gun? He certainly meets the definition of a potential danger to the community. Harassing people is not a tactic of the security job, it's a crime. I could and would testify in a court of law, under oath, that Mr. Corona engages in and is perpetrating ongoing Harassment.

Whenever I suspect skulduggery my voice activated recorder allows me to have a record as a witness; your PD can and should arrest Mr. Corona for harassment; his outrageous violative behavior may be to eliminate observation of criminal practices in which he engages or receives kick-backs. (He also harasses the mother of the Market cart herder; a simple elderly lady, who rests while waiting for her ride home after doing the day's grocery shopping for their entire family, (custom in large extended Vietnamese families), she always has two carts full of groceries, and squats near the cart stall, waiting patiently. Corona blasts intimidating insults at her and demands that she identify herself and the person from whom she has the endorsement to wait there. He rousts her and tells her she can't sit. It seems sadistic and purposeless, she has to explain herself over and over again every time. The Mom guard always ends the confrontatin by offering the lady his chair. Maybe Mr. Corona suffers from Korsekoff encephalopothy and could get a job as a bill collector, where his relentless obnoxious behavior would be appropriate. He has become insufferable to may of the strip mall merchants. The guards are taking bets on when he is going to be fired. He asked me if the other guards harass me, I said not usually, he said, "They aren't doing their job!"

Mr. Corona wants to be percieved as someone with knowledge and authority, but frankly he appears to be trying to shake me down for money, he says, "I know how much money you make..." How would he know anything about me?

You mentioned, at our meeting, that he had impugned me as a panhandler. Actually, "Panhandling," according to the penal code, is "Accosting" others. An "agressive panhandler" is someone who follows others. I'm just standing under a tree. "Standing or sitting by a wayside, in the public thoroughfare," is lawful; under a tree, it is the Buddhist tradition, it is not panhandling. Oddly your officer Prieta lectured me on 'inner peace,' odd, because I am a Rinpoche, (what he did was comparable to telling the Pope how to be Catholic). In a way it was adorable because he is so young and presumptuous. He told me that "what is wrong with America is that too many people feel entitled..." Officer Prieta has a very solid work ethic. I'm 65, which is retirement age, never the less he asked me for my entire work history. I could tell he has kids, because this is the line of questioning that comes from being an involved parent; my little art students are similarly subjected to account for their productiveness after art lessons. And in fact Ricky, Officer Prieta's seven year old, plans to be an artist when he grows up.

Mr. Corona has created yet another imagined violation, (on May 21, 2017), he accused me of a violation of 602 (1) (a), and he called the dispatcher to have me arrest, at about 5:30 on May 21, 2017, the officers had him sign a Citizen Arrest form. I don't have time to look it up the code, I've already wasted hours trying to educate every one involved regarding the codes; I'm guessing that the criteria for this latest supposed violation in no way justifies the arrest he had in mind. Mr. Corona told the arresting officers that I obstructed commerce and intimidated him. How is it plausible to have accomplished all of that, while meditating on an island in the parking lot? To the contrary, it's very apparent on tape recordings, that Mr. Corona deliberately intimidates and harasses me: He disrupts me every time I try to check on my phone service or buy a fish, he blusters at me in a relentless stream of intimidating lies about the law, and arrest threats, I have always responded in a friendly acommodating manner, in spite of his constant outrageous verbal attacks and accusations, that have no basis in fact, and serve no security or law enforcement purpose.

The experience of being harassed, and subjected to the legal process in the absence of a crime is torturous and terrifying, I am going to require heart surgery, because of a resultant arrhythmia (unstable heart rate, requiring a pace maker). Maybe I will survive this life threatening experience.

Preliminary to this most recent police encounter, with cops, of May 21, 2017, Mr. Corona said, "I have been doing some research on the trespassing code...," for which I was arrested, TWICE, 602 (t) he insisted that the arrest was appropriate. Although I have told him as many times as he asks which is constantly, "The criteria for an arrest is previous convictions, I have no convictions) perhaps he means to provoke me into an argument, by stating his absurd interpretation of the law, relentlessly to the point of exasperation, the way that police do when they want to tack on a resisting charge, to an arrest that won't stick; they provoke the arrestee because they want to add a resisting charge as a fall back position: Mr. Corona irritates me constantly. Oddly when the arresting officers (B. Poling) arrived Officer Poling said the identical thing, "I have been doing some research...," However he concluded that I do not meet the criteria for a trespass arrest, he read from the Patrol Officer code book, the first sentence of '602 (t) 'Someone previously convicted of a crime at that location may be arrested for trespassing...' Officer Poling stated that he did not consider me to be in violation of any code at all, not 602 (t) or any other, not 602 (a) (1) either, and he stated that he was not going to charge me, but that Mr. Corona had in mind to have me arrested. Mr. Corona joined us, he asked Officer Poling to arrest me on 602 (a) (1). Poling then went through the motions of arresting me, Poling's "partner," in a different squad car, took me to jail, in Booking the a female officer stated, 'They didn't arrest you, they didn't want to, they detained you because they just felt like they had to get you out of there.

I wonder why they had to get me out of there? In any event it appears that the officers and Mr. Corona conspired to come up with a ruse, it's as if they brain stormed, asking one of the other, 'what if we tell her we've been doing the research and know she meets the criteria for the charge at issue, and then you tell her that you are going to ignore that and pretend to arrest her for something else, but instead we will just detain her, she will think she is off the hook, then charge her the next day, she will never know that the charge was entered into the system, since she doesn't get a ticket, and there is no arraignment date without a ticket (the DA has no duty to notice arraignment dates) she will miss her arraignment date, and bingo we will get a conviction on her that will make the other previous charges stick! Mwaha ha ha ha ha.'

In fact, Mr. Corona had intimated previously that he had in mind to do that, he said, in one of his endless episodes of accosting me with bluster, harassment, and lies, "...I'll get a conviction on you by the time you are arraigned on the 602 (t) arrests..." He may have convinced your seemingly intelligent officers to go along with it. They can get you to get them out of it, but Corona has no hope in hell of getting away with Malicious Prosecution.

When I turned in the IA complaint the next day, on May 22, 2017, I told the receiving officer that this most recent unlawful detention was made by the same officer who arrested me the first time, I added, "Maybe he is going to arrest Mr. Corona eventually for harassment," the officer blurted, "I seriously doubt that Mrs. Wood, (I'm not married) the officer was doing you a favor by only detaining you, he could have arrested you! It was the same security guard right?" This is the forth officer, in a month, to give me their unsolicited opinion that the police are doing me favors by arresting and detaining me. And yet I am about to be hospitalized for heart surgery because of their favors. Their job is to arrest criminals, not law abiding people who they want to clear out of areas where cops get kick backs from security guards who are running rackets.

If it keeps going this way the court will consider that the unlawful arrests and detentions are attempts to sieve a crime into existence where there is none; the court will take all of the arresting officer's badges for making 'perjured statements to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime: False Arrest citations, police reports, and accompanying documents are defined as Perjury. Certainly Mr. Corona takes the cake on perjury; having singed so many Citizen Arrest forms resulting in baseless arrests and detentions. The officers' effort, conspiring to get me convicted, come hell or high water, no matter the contrivance, will blow up in their face: Misguided, misled, and conniving. In any event I'm exhausted by their skulduggery, and concerned for the cost to the tax payer of wasted training dollars when the officers are canned, and damages; when the PD is sued under Federal Code section 1983: False Arrest.

Obviously the Department is concerned as well; they sat a convicted criminal next to me at booking (where arrestees, detainees, and convicted criminals are not allowed to talk to each other). We chatted up a storm, as any good undercover cop would do, she asked me if I make money suing on false arrests, I said, "Yes, they have to pay you when you go to jail for no reason." The victim gets paid damages, but as a legal analyst who writes the brief and wins the case, I get zip, my pro pers are homeless people who can't pay. Yet, the police keep trashing my civil rights and trying to impugn an avaricious motive where there is none, knowing that I have never lost a case. Also the victim of the false arrest has to have been in custody for more than three hours and fifteen minutes, which I was every time. (The Mom guards are at odds with the Landsecurity guards, professional jealousy probably; the Mom Market guards asked me how long I was in custody, when I told them four hours, they fist bumped and whopped like conference bowl winners, taking bets on the False Arrest case being bullet proof, with that under my belt, they told me to evade the Landhousing guards by leaving at 5:30 before the cops have a chance to get there and "come back at 7:30, when Landhousing leaves." Boys will be boy.

There is a huge controversy regarding the Landhousing guards, all of the merchants hate them. A guard should be unobtrusive, all of the mall criminals know exactly where and when the Landhousing guards are making their rounds, and have figured out how to run their rackets avoiding them. If the guards imagine that they are a deterrent to the junkies who plagued the businesses before the guards were hired, or that the can get in on their action, they are foolishly mistaken (see pics of regular grifters).

Lawyers who want to screw people out of money work for big law firms; I work for the principals that make America great. You may recall taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. I will prevail against SAPD for False Arrest, because no one is going to believe that the police made the same 'mistake' three times in a row, within one thirty day period, or that it's a mere coincidence that I was arrested serially in the absence of a violation of law: The deliberate intent and purpose of violating my civil rights, by Landhousing security, and the police department, with the intent of gaining a conviction in the absence of a crime, is indisputable: Mr. Corona told Officer Poling that he has statements from shoppers who came to him to say they don't shop at the market specifically because I am there, and he claimed that I met the criteria for an arrest under 602 (a) (1) (whatever it is) because I had intimidated him (I'm not going to bother looking it up (I have real legal research to conduct, this Landhousing harassment is just an irritating load of bull) but I'll bet Mr. Corona's interpretation of the law is flat out stupid. I'll bet he re-created every word of it.

I asked Officers Poling and Preita if Corona's lies seems believable to them, they said it's for a judge to determine (see tape). (Fine, that judge will get the trancripts of hours, day after day, of Corna intimidating me with confabulated versions of the law, so preposterous that the judge will be insenced. I told the officers that a simple investigation might expose the lies, for example "...why not ask the cashier, guard, or manager, since I just came out of the store, I have shopped there without incident for four years. (I have a tapes of the Mom guard recounting numerous compliments by customers and staff, as well as complaints that turned out to be issued by criminals trying to get rid of me so that their crime turf would be free of observers.) Mr. Corona may not be savvy or smart enough to discern same, or he may be engaged in criminal activity. In any event the concept of a patron signing a statement saying that her shopping experience has been discontinued in avoidance of a woman resting under a tree in the parking lot, is absurd. Clearly Mr. Corona is constructing a ruse.

I asked the Officers how I could have intimidated a big armed security guard, they didn't know. Mr. Corona had been blustering and yelling at me while I was standing on the median with Ray, deciding what to get for dinner (it's always a fish) see tapes. Mr Corona said to the police, 'She stands in the roadway talking to people obstructing traffic,' I told them that 'Mr. Corona did send a Mexican guy to offer me a beer, I guess he wanted the police to roll up on an open container charge, I don't speak Spanish, the man tried to hand me a can of beer so I left, no traffic or commerce was obstructed;' when I walked away from the Mexican I saw a nude prostitute and her pimp in a van, as I walked by, Corona was parked there too, the Mexican man who was trying to get me to take a beer walked to where they were, I guess to get more orders. All of this harassment should result in the arrest of Corona, not of me.

At this point the only way you are going to get away with all of these shenanigans is to arrest Corona and deem your sKulduggery, and false arrests to be a sting conducted in order to nail Corona for his criminal rackets, in the interest of justice. I recall that you asked me if I report crimes when I observe them in the Mom Supermarket parking lot; as a matter of fact, while your officers were detaining me I observed a prostitute (nude woman in a copper color 1970's type van at the Massage Parlor, where Landhousing Security guard Mr Corona had parked and loitered for the duration of time before the officers arrived, the nude prostitute in the van was entertaining a man, also nude, with the side sliding doors and the drivers side door open, I wonder why  Corona didn't notice that, he was parked in proximity, watching, Ray commented on it, (see tapes) yet Corona called the police to arrest me rather than the prostitute, let me go out on a limb here: Perhaps Corona does not want me there, with my camera, documenting his pimp daddy action, he had cruised the parking lot on his day off, Friday with a beautiful woman in his security car, I was not there on Saturday, on Sunday Corona made a big deal about it, I asked Corona if she was his wife, but I'm guessing she was a 'working girl.' Just a guess.

All sarcasm aside, regarding your police department, you may or may not know that 'Property' is a pit stop destination for officers who have made arrests to fill up on drugs, the Rave / party-harty, atmosphere in Property is shocking because most of the conversations regard taking of copious quantities of cocaine, meth, and pot by the arresting officers, who are stoned out of their minds having a rip roaring good time laughing and partying like teenagers. When I was arrested on May 23, 2017, I asked the arresting officer to turn off my recorder because I didn't want to listen to the all night party at Property, when I got it back, but the officer forgot to turn the recorder off on April 30, 2017, and also on May 30. 2017. (Rolling my eyes, at the "hypocricy' of police officers, who polish their halo's for court after consuming copious quantities of their arrestees drugs.)

When I upload my tapes to the ACLU, I can say with confidence that they don't listen to the remaining hours of tape recording the bawdy house atmosphere in Property, after the arrest, and they certainly would not criminalize the officer who sent the recorder through, his intent was not to unlawfully record a private place, but I suggest, in order to eliminate the possibility of complications, lets make a special effort to tell arresting officers, 'turn off the arrestee's recording equipment after the arrest.' Each and every arresting officer of the evening of April 30, 2017, and May 21, 2017, would be divested of his badge for obvious misconduct if it were apparent that the primary purpose of Property is to service the drug needs of completely stoned patrol officers. -Nancy Wood (Mr. Corona told me that the owner of the property is not the Market but rather is a corporation, that hired Landhousing Security: Westland Real Estate 310 639 7130, when I have time I'll send them the transcripts that I send to you. I have to finish a brief regarding the City of Fountain Valley (same crap different city), they keep getting continuances rather than step up to the plate, but I should be done with them this week, and then my schedule will be free to work on this False Arrest case against SAPD for a few weeks. The case starts with the Internal Affairs complaint and notice to Landhousing, after I enter not guilty on June 6, the case will be dismissed at the pretrial on July 6, 2017, then I can file against the PD, the Market, and Landhousing Security. IA's determination is entered into evidence, IA is then out of the loupe. -Nancy Wood