SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A COMMUNITY RELATIONS or CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION [nor the District Attorney a Civil Rights Law Enforcement Program]--WHY??

A glance at the San Bernardino County website in an attempt to see if there is a structure that gives people a place to grieve about civil rights violations or to discuss government policies concerning same [http://www.sbcounty.gov/cob/main/OtherServices-bcc-BoardRoster.aspx] revealed that the County does not advertise the existence of a Community Relations, Human Relations or a Civil Rights Commission.
.
At the San Bernardino District Attorney's office's website [http://www.sbcountyda.org/]  the categories under the "Action Center" include:

Marsy's Law
High Profile Cases
Apply for Victim Compensation
Inmate Locator
Find Case Information
Report a Crime
Report Workers' Comp Violation
Report Real Estate Fraud
Report Welfare Fraud
Report Auto Fraud
Report Identity Theft
My Day in Court

Victims of discriminatory abuses by private (and public officials) are marginalized by the focus AWAY from civil rights (so how can that be tolerated?) The Unruh Civil Rights Act found at California Civil Code 51 et seq, specifically contemplates enforcement action by District Attorneys (like Mike Ramos)---so the mandate of the law is not even a thought in the process with the current DA Mike Ramos?? Sad. Another reason for a change in the Board of Supervisor's leadership, the Sheriff and the District Attorney?

.

As a candidate for the District Attorney's top spot, I would form a civil rights unit in the DA's office, staff it and work with community groups and any commissions established by the County to hear grievances and complaints, with an eye to making the DA's office a part of the team the law contemplates as players in the effort to enforce our civil rights laws.

.

Sincerely,

.

Bob Conaway

I WON'T TELL YOU HOW & WHEN I DECIDE I WILL GO FOR THE DEATH PENALTY!

Ramos in February 2008 (before the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice) defended the practice of most prosecutors in the state to keep secret the processes they use in choosing which defendants will face the death penalty, despite some researchers have suggested that such secrecy leads to a disproportionate number of death sentences for minorities and the poor.

Ramos, however, said exposing the thinking of district attorneys would allow defense lawyers to unfairly glimpse (Blogger Bob's comment: Is there a scenario of a "fair glimpse"?) prosecution strategies about cases. He assured the commission that district attorneys throughout the state use their discretion in a responsible manner (Blogger Bob's comment--isn't this hearsay??). "The ultimate decision we can make is taking somebody's life, and we are very careful about that," he said.

Blogger Bob's comments: The criteria should be objective and public and if not, there needs to be some objective oversight process to assure than class, race, ethnicity, national origin, economic ability to retain competent outside counsel, association, speech content, religion, gender, sexual orientation and gender are not factors in deciding for or against the death penalty.

DA's are out executing more search warrants today and other unrelated fun stuff???

(1) Today special units are in the pull over shirts with DA logos, uniform slacks and a healthy share of dust-type dirt all over them--wonder whose storage they've been crawling in and out of today!
(2) Heh, today I had the unique pleasure of having to go to the courthouse 4 times due to a clerk's directives about what she needed in a particular file--turns out I was right--one trip was all I needed; intentional, nah, just a bizzare waste of time;
(3) Heard a story today, which if true, that may hopefully challenge RAMO's anti-corruption unit into doing the right thing when it gets through the channels/gauntlet; the potential witness/witnesses (not a defendant, witness of interest identified or target)will likely need some protection.

Integrity of your prosecutorial team DOES COUNT -- look at NC Crime Lab Accused of Hiding, Doctoring Evidence

NC Crime Lab Accused of Hiding, Doctoring Evidence
......
Blogger Bob's comments:

The integrity of the people we chose to prosecute other citizens does count!

All's Not Well (?) # 5

(1) San Bernardino County Grand Jury sends letter dated July 30, 2010 (not sent until August 3, 2010 per the postal meter) saying in relevant part: "[i]t has been determined that your complaint is not within the jurisdiction if the Grand Jury and no further action will be taken at this time. No further correspondence will be sent to you by this Grand Jury."

Comment on (1) Interesting comment by the Foreman (who signed the July 30, 2010 letter to this blogger) when the statute (Election Code 15640 et seq) specifically says the grand jury of the county has the power to petition the court for a manual recount; also of interest is the changed reference to "no further correspondence will be sent to you by "this Grand Jury" (someone else looking)?

(2) California Department of Justice State Public Inquiry Unit sends a letter to this blogger dated June 22, 2010 (mailed June 25, 2010) says in relevant part "the Secretary of State's Office has primary responsibility to investigate cases of alleged criminal misconduct and to determine if a violation has occurred."

Comment on (2) Passing the buck (sorta); the Secretary of State was sent a copy at the same time as was the Attorney General/DOJ and to date nothing has been said to this blogger; I won't hold my breath--the last time I reported irregularities [previously in re the Sequoia counters], without checking with observers that documented jambing, multiple ballot feeds, refeeds without resetting or adjusting for the partially counted ballots, the Secretary of State gave the County of San Bernardino her blessing that all was well and ok. Also the date of mailing was done so that the letter would not be received until AFTER the registrar would certify the election!!

(3) San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors - has never acknowledged receipt of the complaint, much less advise re any action and or disposition

Comment on (3) Actually maybe there was a bit of retaliation by the Board of Supervisors; I live next to a County Senior Center that we give some support to, attend lunches or breakfasts at, etc; the Hinkley Senior Center recently "lost" their "meal" contract over a technicality (that Mitzelfelt forgave the Pinion Hills Senior Center for) and are being forced to accept Barstow's Senior Center's meal service, which has taken away the independence and autonomy of the senior center, the related ability to fully service its area seniors with local people and have the added benefits resulting therefrom; also a playground was forced upon the senior center's land; input was given, after other locations where most of the children live in the service area were proposed by numerous community leaders, but was illogically rejected. The County was asked to place its playground to the North of the Senior Center building so as to not disrupt the senior center's operations; a vote was taken and all center members supported locating the playground to the north end, if it must be put on senior center property at all; the plans came back from the county and they want to locate the playground guess where--to the South end of the senior center, which will interfere with the center's operations and be guess what, is also next to my fenced parcel where I live---nothing like moving to the country for peace and quiet and having a playground located next door to you. I of course voiced my objection to placing the playground there before the plans were drawn (when the seniors all voted to put it on the North end)--I guess that was as good as assuring it would be placed on the South end. That the County appears to want to retaliate against this blogger for making a complaint, well, you get the picture.