Police Bullying and Brutality for defending the lives of their families and their own

Bullying

Talking about police Bullying and Brutality in the hope to make change.

Is this how people in the Uk should be treated for defending the lives of their families and their own?

This discussion relates to my previous post about my own journey through the prison system and my experiences whilst serving my sentence. Bullying and Violence was everyday life in all 12 prisons in which i served  my sentence. It ranged from Inmate on inmate bullying and violence to officer on inmate bullying and violence. All of which was always covered up with corruption and brushed under the carpet…

I was sentenced to 4 years for defending the lives of my family and my own life. The first part of my story can be found @ http://www.tomthumb.info/tt/index.php/my-story/ which tells of the event which led to me been sentenced. And the story of my journey through the prison system can be found @ http://www.tomthumb.info/tt/index.php/bullying-brutality/.

The above links just tell my own story, but so many people have shared similar experiences.My time incarsirated was a living nightmare which to this day still haunts my life and will for the rest of my living days.

In today’s world we must remember that more and more innocent people are being sent to prison,all under the political polices of “Attack the innocent to protect the guilty”, and this is why human rights, and civil liberties of all inmates should be upheld.

The question is

“Is this how people in the Uk should be treated for defending the lives of their families and their own?”

Share your views and opinions and let us know what you think…

+1 us on Google

 

Like us on Facebook and visit the homepage @ http://www.facebook.com/Tomthumbinfo

 

 
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

4 Responses to Police Bullying and Brutality for defending the lives of their families and their own

  1. I admire your courage David. It’s about time people tell the brutal truth about the corruption in our governments.

  2. admin says:

    Thank you Michelle. The word “BRUTAL” sums up what is happening to so many people. Its not restricted to just a country but is a world wide issue that needs to be tackled. So many are facing injustice and corruption at the hands of those in power. Lives become changed forever and it is the innocent that end up paying the price

  3. COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
    IN THE MATTERS OF ALISSA V., ET AL., Minors,
    GARYR., Petitioner, vs. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, Respondent, VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
    APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY THE HONORABLE TARI L. CODY CASE NOS. J067944, J067945, J06794-&,-J67947
    OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
    LEROY SMITH, SB No.1 07702 County Counsel, County of Ventura OLIVER G. HESS, SB No. 090466 Assistant County Counsel 800 South Victoria Avenue, LIC #1830 Ventura, California 93009-1830
    Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Ventura County Human Services Agency
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………… ii
    INTRODUCTION …………………………………….. 1
    QUESTIONS PRESENTED ……………………………… 3
    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ….. 4
    STANDARD OF REVIEW ……………………………… 11
    ARGUMENT ……………………………………….. 12
    I MR. R.’S PETITION DOES COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNING RULE AS TO FORM AND CONTENT AND THEREFORE INEXPLICABLY SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL ………. 12
    II THE JUVENILE COURT DID ABUSE ITS DISCRETION OR OTHERWISE ERR WHEN IT GRANTED HSA’S DORA SAENZ BELDEN SECTION 388 PETITION, TERMINATED REUNIFICATION SERVICES TO ELIZABETH V., AND MADE THE SETTING ORDER …………………………………. 13
    A. Barred Mr. R.-From Challenging the Jurisdiction Time and Orders and Is Finding Dispositions .. 13
    B. Mr. R. Was Properly Notified of the February 23 Hearing and TO FAIN BAD FAITH ADVANTAGE GILMAN ENSURED FATHERS ABSENCE AS HE WAS USUALLY ONLY TOLD AFTER MAYBE 20 Other Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    C. Mr. R. Consented to no Continuances By attorney Requesting Them Himself or By Failing To Object to impossible vchsa conundrums barred by same court orders………. 13
    D. The Court and its Officers Did Deny Mr. R. the Opportunity to Present Evidence and 16 WITNESSES including expert Witnesses …. 21
    E. The Juvenile Court Did Abuse Its Discretion upon its basis of errroneouus findings used to bring children within W.I.C. 300 detention removal for jurisdiction (tail wags dog) When It Granted the vchsa maliciously contrived Section 388 Petition and Made the venal Setting Order ………………………. 21
    IN CONCLUSION VCHSA UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY AREA HOUSING AUTHORITY EVICTION ……………………… . …………….. 22
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    STATE CASES The common law business judgment rule has two components—one which immunizes [corporate] directors from personal liability if they act in accordance with its requirements, and another which insulates from court intervention those management decisions which are made by directors in good faith in what the directors believe is the organization’s best interest.’ [Citation.] A hallmark of the business judgment rule is that, when the rule’s 1122*1122 requirements are met, a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the corporation’s board of directors. [Citation.]” (Lamden, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 257.)
    MAY THE COURT CONSIDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF A FATHER
    MAY A PARENT RIGHT TO RAISE HIS MINOR CHILD RIGHT BE FUNDAMENTAL AS WELL AND WITH RIGHTS OF THE CHILDRENS OWN RIGHTS TO BE UPHELD AND CONSTITUTIONALLY CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT AND STATE OF CA COUNTY OF VENTURA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CWDA DIRECTORS THAT SECURED BOND IN THE UNDERTAKING OF 978 RESTRAINING ORDERS FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE AND CO EMPLOYEE WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER, NOR THE SEIU SERVICE UNION, NOR FATHERS CHILDREN, NOR DID ANY OF THE SUPPOSEDLY REQUIRED PERSONS TO BE PROTECTED HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHY THEY NEEDED TO BE INVOLVED WITH WORKPLACE VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS WHERE THE UNWARRANTED ORDERS UNJUSTLY PLACES THEM IN RISK ASSESMENT CATEGORIES AND EVALUATED ACCORDING TO DVRAG SARA ODARA ETC…

    Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998)
    63 Cal.App.4th 149 ………………………………. 13
    Cheryl S. v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1000 ……………………………… 13
    Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947 ………………………………. 13
    Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570 .. . ……………… …………. 12, 13
    In re Angela R. (1989)
    212 Cal.App.3d 257 ……………………………… 17
    In re Alyssa H. (1994)
    22 Cal.App.4th 1249 ……………………………… 15
    In re J.H. (2007)
    158 Cal.App.4th 174 ……………………………… 17
    In re Jasmine G. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1109 …………………………….. 17
    In re Meranda P. (1997)
    56 Cal.App.4th 1143 ……………………………… 15
    Book account, account stated account, or balance due account [CCP §337(2)]
    4 years
    Contracts, verbal [CCP §339(1)]
    2 years from breach
    Contracts, written [CCP §337(1)]

    Attorney professional negligence, other than actual fraud [CCP §340.6]The statute of limitation may be suspended, e.g., by minority, insanity, imprisonment, absence from state, or absence in times of war. [See, e.g., CCP §§351, 352, 352.1, 354.]

    A limitation period also may be tolled by parties’ written agreement [see CCP §360.5], or may be equitably tolled when the defendant’s conduct contributed to the plaintiff’s delay in filing suit. [Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411.] Tolling under CCP §351 for absence from the state does not apply to claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving nonresident motorists. [Litwin v Estate of Formela (2010) 186 CA4th 607, 616–617.]

    DI SCRIMINATION requested a written response to the allegations raised by complaint by JULY. Respondent did not respond to the May 11, 11 letter and did not respond to the allegations raised by

    VELASCO-ROSENTHALrequested a written response to the allegations raised by complaint by May . Respondent did not respond to the May 11, 11 letter and did not respond to the allegations raised byScomplaint.
    Counts 1 and 6 – Section 6068, subd. (m) (Communication)
    Section 6068, subdivision (m) requires an attorney to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.

    ATTORNEY INNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO ME AS HIS CLIENT LED ME TO MY DETRIMENT AND HERE IS WHERE RICH CUSH GILMAN AND VCHSA MISUSED AND ERROR IN REPORT Book account, account stated TRANSFERS TO COMMINGLED TRUST ACCOUNT WITH NASW FORMER BOARD MEMBER DORA SAENZ BELDEN PERSONAL account IN DEBT OWED TO CREDITORS , AND SAENZ BELDEN balance ERROR IN REPORT due account [CCP §337(2)]
    4 years
    Contracts, verbal [CCP §339(1)]
    2 years from breach
    Contracts, written [CCP §337(1)]
    statement AND CASE PLAN WRITINGS ARE AND was made by EACH OF THE ATTORNEYS IN CASE J067944 the declarant FOR FRAUDULANT REASON while participating in a
    conspiracy to commit a crime or civil wrong and in furtherance of the objective
    of that conspiracy;EFraud or mistake [CCP §338(d)]
    3 years from discovery
    Health care professional negligence [CCP §340.5]
    1 year from discovery or 3 years from injury, whichever occurs first
    Liability created by statute [CCP §338(a)]
    3 years
    Libel, slander [CCP §340(c)]
    1 year
    Limitation period not otherwise specified [CCP §343]
    4 years from accrual of action
    Mechanic’s lien on real property [CC §3144(a)]
    90 days after lien recorded
    Penalty, action under statute imposing [CCP §340(a)]
    1 year
    Personal injury to or death of individual caused by wrongful act or neglect [CCP §335.1]
    2 years
    Personal property, injury to [CCP §338(c)]
    3 years
    Promissory note [Com C §3118(a)–(b)]
    6 years from due date or, if payable on demand, 6 years from demand date
    Public entity, claim against [CCP §342; GC §§911.2(a), 945.6(a) (file claim with entity within 6 months or one year after accrual)]
    6 months from written denial by entity, or 2 years from accrual of action if no written denial
    Rescission of oral contract [CCP §339(3)]
    2 years
    Rescission of written contract [CCP §337(3)]
    4 years
    Theft or conversion [CCP §338(c)]
    3 years
    Trees, injuries to [CC §3346(c)]
    5 years from trespass
    Trespass on or injury to real property [CCP §338(b)]

  4. The Texas Ombudsman – Brad Livingston, has informed me that the guards deny cursing and therefore what I am told is hearsay!
    Does anybody believe that?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>