QUESTIONABLE USE OF DASH CAMERAS

IN THE INCIDENTS LISTED BELOW; questionable behavior was exhibited by responding Sunnyvale police officers. In both incidents; officers instructed John to move away from the front of their squad cars; purposefully moving John out of range of their dash cameras -- QUESTION: why did both officers instruct John to move out of range of their dash cameras?

QUESTIONABLE INCIDENT #1

(SEE: CR #12-573 -- Officer Winkleman) 

GO TO:  http://likroper.com/21JAN2012A.wmv

see also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evj15rULEsU&feature=c4-overview&list=UU13_WfEgp0MBd6w_RqN1oug

QUESTIONABLE INCIDENT #2:

http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/06/incident-on-15-june-2013-ev13-166-206_17.html

NOTE: Purposefully evasive measures like this essentially amount to the ignoring of exculpatory evidence (by not allowing that evidence to be gathered in the first place) and/or the obstruction of justice. Adding to this; on 25 APR 2011; Jake Paolinetti was evading a Police officer when he ran to hide out in the residence of a family friend (the Henson family) across the street from Johns' house after he found out an officer was on the way. The responding officer wrongfully chose to let Jake Paolinetti go once Jake came out of hiding; leading to an even worse situation which happened a few weeks later. Therefore; this officer and/or the Sunnyvale police department are clearly negligent in this instance as well. > 25 APR 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZuOygtSY6A

INSTITUTIONALIZED GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION (continued)...

PENAL CODE

SECTION 240-248

240.  An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. For instance; 241.  (a) An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

   

But! (b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

QUESTIONS: Why would the fine be more for assaulting a government employee than a tax paying citizen? This proves institutionalized government discrimination not only exists; but is also considered be to an "acceptable" part of our system of justice. If anything; those tax paying citizens (local and county taxes etc) should be protected MORE than government employees; as those tax paying citizens fund this government folly; do they not? ALL PEOPLE MUST BE PROTECTED EQUALLY TO ERADICATE ALL FORMS OF UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION IN OUR SOCIETY...

READ MORE @ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=240-248 + SEE ALSO: http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/07/institutionalized-gender-discrimination.html + http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/07/institutionalized-gender-discrimination_25.html

NOTE: WHILE PART OF THE REASON JOHN DESPISES THE IDEA OF BEING A HOLLYWOOD STAR IS BECAUSE OF THE PRIVACY-INVADING PAPARAZZI SCENE IN HOLLYWOOD (paparazzi who essentially gather intelligence information for the NSA/CIA); The new law signed by California Governor Brown aimed at protecting celebrities and/or public figures from paparazzi harassment (including the children of police officers; perhaps due to Johns' bold, heroic actions which were ultimately aimed at bringing attention to Johns' situation) is not only; 1) another good and/or bad example of the imbalance between how the rich and poor are treated (did anyone see the movie TITANIC?); 2) but also a good and/or bad example of how some people are discriminated against in an attempt to help others; 3) as well as a good and/or bad example of how many laws are written so vaguely; at certain points within the language that they cannot be successfully/broadly applied without ensuing conflict. (It is as if these vague laws are perhaps written and passed on purpose so it can be "whatever way the wind blows" when it comes to [psychotic and/or bipartisan] judicial interpretation). The truth remains that anyone and/or everyone who is in public is a public figure; and the press is still free regardless of this new, partially unconstitutional law. > go to: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-bills-paparazzi-20130925,0,7649417.story

> AS ABOVE ~ SO BELOW? -- Other good and/or bad examples of institutionalized government discrimination: 1) members of the U.S. Congress legally involved themselves in insider trading regarding bills they are about to pass; while average citizens will be incarcerated for doing the exact same thing. This not only has made being a member of Congress more about making money than making sound decisions; BUT IT ALSO ANOTHER GLARING EXAMPLE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION. 2) If the same thing that happened to John over the last ten years happened a judge and/or a police officer; swift action would have been taken to stop the stalking and harassment long ago; as well as the "minor" attack by Doug Ward; this would have been a FELONY if the same force was used against a police officer. CAN ANYONE SAY DISCRIMINATION? I didn't think so. 3) Another example of this: (Excerpts from the S.F. Chronicle) "But there was no such clemency across the bay in Oakland at the Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse, where Commissioner Taylor Culver reigns over his courtroom with sarcastic 'humor'. During a red-light camera trial on a recent afternoon, when one defendant asked for a reduction in his fine, Culver boomed, "Nobody here is special or better than anybody. There's nobody here special but me." (can anyone see the direct contradiction within that statement? nobody is special while someone is special? ok whatever...what a stupid thing to say) This not only shows a gross arrogance (and/or sheer stupidity) on the part of some government employees; but mainly shows how discrimination has become an "acceptable" part of our society. It shows that some people we are told to look up to; are clearly not worthy of being looked up to. > http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Soaring-fines-give-ticketed-drivers-sticker-shock-4857979.php

SEE ALSO: ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/03/action-for-neglect-to-prevent.html

THE NSA: EXPLOITING TECHNOLOGY; WHILE MAKING PRIVACY OBSOLETE...

EXCERPTS FROM THE ARTICLE: The NSA Isn't the Only Government Agency Exploiting Technology to Make Privacy Obsolete -- For at least the last six years, government agents have been exploiting an AT&T database filled with the records of billions of American phone calls from as far back as 1987. The rationale behind this dragnet intrusion, codenamed Hemisphere, is to find suspicious links between people with "burner" phones (prepaid mobile phones easy to buy, use, and quickly dispose of), which are popular with drug dealers. The secret information gleaned from this relationship with the telecommunications giant has been used to convict Americans of various crimes, all without the defendants or the courts having any idea how the feds stumbled upon them in the first place. The program is so secret, so powerful, and so alarming that agents "are instructed to never refer to Hemisphere in any official document," according to a recently released government PowerPoint slide. -- And it's true: the smartphone in your pocket is a tracking device that also happens to allow you to make calls, read email, and tweet. Several times every minute, your mobile phone lets your cell-phone provider know where you are, producing a detail-rich history of where you have been for months, if not years, on end. GPS-enabled applications do the same. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell for sure how long the companies hang onto such location data because they won't disclose that information.

QUESTION: If this is in fact true; how could John have been stalked and harassed for nearly 10 years without at least SOMEONE knowing SOMETHING about it? I tend to think there is much more secret prior-knowledge evidence available of this episode than the United States Government wants to freely admit to: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty-free-speech/destroying-right-be-left-alone

WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND/OR DISSUADING A WITNESS ETC: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 136.1

 

The photo above shows Jake Paolinetti and two other unidentified individuals (unsuccessfully) attempting and/or conspiring to dissuade and/or intimidate John on 15 June 2013. This was roughly 4 days before John received a letter from George Hills, Incorporated inviting John to file a federal lawsuit by 12 APR 2014. The video shown above is also further proof of witness intimidation. While it is now increasingly obvious who broke Johns' windshield; no action was taken by the Sunnyvale police to find and/or question the individual and/or individuals who likely broke the windshield.

"DO YOU WANT YOUR DADDY?" --

Pablo Lopez 14 JUN 2006

The incident that occurred on Sunday July 29th, 2007 (see below) was when the witness intimidation against John officially started (a fruitless decade long effort failing to intimidate and/or scare John). But all this has done is make John angry and ready to seek swift justice. This particular incident happened about two days before John received his very first rejection letter from the City of Santa Clara for a wrongful arrest and/or detention (and/or kidnapping) by officer Pablo Lopez. John clearly had a case against the City of Santa Clara; and they knew it. Officer Lopez was investigated and reprimanded for this wrongful arrest of John (see photo above) and officer Lopez likely faced expulsion from the ranks if any decisive action was pursued in this situation; which it was not. 

Sunday, July 29, 2007 / LAYING IN WAIT, MALICIOUS VANDALISM AND ATTEMPTED VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER @ http://neighborhood-copwatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/malicious-vandalism-and-attempted.html > Note: no photos of the Sunday, July 29, 2007 crime scene were taken by the responding Sunnyvale police officers; who suggested that "someone was mad" at John for something. The only person "who was mad" and/or had a clear motive against John in this case is OFFICER PABLO LOPEZ and/or THE SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT.

  

This incident occurred about less than one month later: Sunday, August 19, 2007 / THE SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT - THE FBI PUBLIC CORRUPTION HOTLINE - THE NIGHT SUPERVISOR AND THE GANG OF PUNKS @ http://neighborhood-copwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/santa-clara-police-department-fbi.html

 

THE ABOVE INCIDENT IS SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE ACTIVELY COVERING-UP FOR JAKE PAOLINETTI AND FRIENDS. IT IS JOHNS' BELIEF ROGUE MEMBERS OF THE SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTED THESE VARIOUS TEENAGERS TO HARASS AND STALK  JOHN IN RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THE ABUSE JOHN EXPERIENCED AT THE HANDS OF PABLO LOPEZ -- IT'S ALL ABOUT ESTABLISHING A MOTIVE FOR THIS CRIME... 

CAL. PEN. CODE § 136.1 : California Code - Section 136.1

- See more @ http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/7/6/s136.1#sthash.Vkxa1jRX.dpuf 

(a)Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison: 

(1)Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law. (2)Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law. (b)Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:

(1)Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge. (2)Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof. (3)Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization. (see: Lieutenant Simpson, Sunnyvale Police Officers Smith & Ochoa, Santa Clara Police Officers Lopez & Seagrave)
 

(c)Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances: (1)Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person. (2)Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy. (see: Jake Paolinetti and friends) (d)Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.  

JAKE PAOLINETTI: CRIMINAL THREATS; TARGETED STALKING; HATE CRIMES; GANG ENHANCEMENTS; ETC > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSSSANDXlE&feature=c4-overview&list=UU13_WfEgp0MBd6w_RqN1oug 

The video seen above was the first most obvious attempt by Jake Paolinetti to dissuade John from gathering more evidence of wrongdoing. Acting as the aggressor; Jake very clearly backs up John about 20-30 feet for merely holding a video camera in the public domain where it is legal for John to do so. (John also told the 911 operator that he had legally consumed a glass of wine; and while John was legally intoxicated at the time of the call; no breath tests were conducted by the responding police officers to determine what level of intoxication; making this a "moot point" in Johns' opinion). In this You Tube video; Jake Paolinetti can be seen pushing John on the sidewalk; which is considered to be an assault in the State of California. 

MENTAL ILLNESS | HATE CRIMES | CRIMINAL THREATS | STALKING | HARASSMENT ETC @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZuOygtSY6A&list=UU13_WfEgp0MBd6w_RqN1oug 

About one month before the above incident occurred; John posted this You Tube video suggesting that Jake Paolinetti is and/or was mentally ill due to the bizarre behavior Jake has exhibited in the past. How did Johns' assessment of Jake Paolinetti get turned around and used against John? Can anyone say "psychological operations"?

NOTE: John dated a psychologist about a decade ago named Gabriele. One day between John and Gabrieles' various daily hetero localized transgressions etc; Gabriele decided to assess Johns' mental state (just for the fun of it). NOTE: Gabriele found John to be quite sane.

Furthermore; since Sunnyvale police officer Lieutenant Simpson is clearly not educated and/or trained as a psychologist; Lieutenant Simpson is therefore NOT qualified to make such a judgment about John.  (John believes Lieutenant Simpson saw the situation the Sunnyvale police had worked to cover up for so long was getting out of hand; therefore Lieutenant Simpson took evasive action to avoid getting his police department in trouble).

Lieutenant Simpson also suggested that John was "depressed". John was clearly not depressed at the time; as John was heading out to the Oasis Nightclub that very same night to be with his many friends that attend the club (friends that Sunnyvale police officers Smith and Ochoa have since illegally separated John from). Question: How could Lieutenant Simpson have come to such a conclusion unless there perhaps had not been misinterpreted surveillance monitoring of John being done at the time; surveillance that may have invaded Johns' privacy?

<><><>

SEE ALSO: OASIS NIGHTCLUB BARTENDER ANGIE: John called the Sunnyvale police from his cell phone on 20 april 2012 between 8 and 9 pm PDT. Oasis Nightclub bartender Angie can be heard dissuading John on this recorded call from Johns' cell phone. The female officer who took the call also clearly heard Oasis Nighclub bartender Angie dissuading a witness by telling John to leave the Oasis Nightclub in retaliation for John calling the Sunnyvale police; and this same officer even commented upon it during the call. Question: Why was no action taken regarding this event?

SEE ALSO: 18 USC § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
@ http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/7/6/s136.1

REST IN PEACE, MISTER DOUG

One of two witnesses who were at the Oasis Nightclub the night John was wrongfully and/or illegally ejected from the club after being attacked by karaoke host Doug Ward is MISTER DOUG. Mister Doug was a security guard at Varian; he was a trustworthy man and a good man who truly enjoyed his life; along with the people who were in his life. Everyone at the Oasis nightclub loved Mister Doug, and removing John from the Oasis disallowed John from enjoying the last few months of Mister Dougs' life and friendship. Question: John does not know how Mister Doug passed away. Was foul play perhaps involved in the death of Mister Doug? It seems a bit odd to John that one of his main witnesses is now suddenly forever gone and unable to provide important testimony about this case. > GO TO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FYS45cN8sI

STALKING BY REBHOLTZS' DAUGHTER

This short video shows a member of the Rebholtzs' family (their daughter) throwing an object at John's house back in May of 2008: http://likroper.com/MVI_2466.AVI.