FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ASSEMBLY MEMBER NOREEN EVANS 7TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT CONTACT: Sean MacNeil PHONE: (916) 319 - 2007

Evans Claims Bill Helps (police) Public Safety and Government Officials Protect Themselves and Families at Home from "Intimidation" or Attack (SACRAMENTO)

A bill authored by Assembly member Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday evening that will help public safety and government officials keep their personal home addresses and phone numbers private. AB 1595 passed with a vote of 5-0. It now passes to the Senate Public Safety Committee. "Anyone with internet access can find the home address and telephone numbers of public safety and elected officials,” said Evans. "Those who serve their fellow citizens should be able to do so without their families at home becoming the target of intimidation or an attack. Sadly, this threat is very real."

Various websites specialize in providing this information and the harmful intentions of some are self-evident. www.killercop.com - now inoperable - offered a cash reward with no questions asked for the death or home addresses of two LAPD officers. Another currently inoperable website, www.justicefiles.org, fostered vigilantism by providing names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers of police officers. To keep this information from aggrieved individuals seeking to intimidate or exact revenge, AB 1595 enables public safety and government officials to prevent individuals, businesses, and associations from publicly posting their home addresses and phone numbers once a written confidentiality request is submitted. “This bill specifically provides public servants – such as judges, district attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs, police, mayors, city attorneys, city council members, and boards of supervisors – with a statutory basis to obtain a court order mandating that this information be removed from a website operating under questionable intentions,” added Evans. “Typically, it takes approximately one week to a month to obtain such a court order.”

This bill originated in the January 2004 findings of California's Public Safety Officials’ Home Protection Advisory Task Force. Chaired by the Attorney General, it included representatives from the Department of Justice, the California Highway Patrol, the Office of Privacy Protection, the judicial and criminal justice community, state recorders and assessors, and the business community. AB 1595 is supported by the Judicial Council of California, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Association of Public Defenders, the California Judges Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, LA County District Attorney, LA County Police Chiefs Association, LA County Sheriff, San Bernardino County Sheriff, Whittier Police Department, and the California Alliance for Consumer Protection.

"The report of my death was an exaggeration."~ Mark Twain

Source

AB 1595 is supported by the Judicial Council of California, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Association of Public Defenders, the California Judges Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, LA County District Attorney, LA County Police Chiefs Association, LA County Sheriff, San Bernardino County Sheriff, Whittier Police Department, and the California Alliance for Consumer Protection.

Source

AB 1595 seeks to strengthen existing law that offers government and public safety officials protection regarding the privacy of their personal information — namely home address and telephone number. Existing law now prohibits a state or local agency from posting personal information of specified elected or appointed individuals without first receiving written consent. Among the provisions in AB 1595 is one that would expand the universe of individuals who are provided a "super equal protection" by this prohibition to include state administrative law judges, federal judges, federal defenders, members of the U.S. Congress, and presidential appointees. The measure makes several other changes, including expanding prohibition against public posting or display of officials’ home addresses or telephone numbers on the Internet with the intent to cause bodily harm.

Source

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber." -U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA.

When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions.

Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson

REPORT A GANG MEMBER.

Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"

WHOIS

WSJ

NY TIMES HIT PIECE

FOX NEWS HIT PIECE

NBC NEWS HIT PIECE

2023 HIT LIST

(c)1997-2023

All Rights Reserved.

TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.

Noreen Evens

A TRUE THREAT TO DRIVERS, AND TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Corporate owned lawyers and agents should be ordered to pay for their own mishaps. And mistakes and technical errors, too! Even the Hybrid ones, specially those ones.

BY DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Article Last Updated: 06/09/2007 08:47:13 PM PDT SACRAMENTO -

Lawmakers using state-issued vehicles filed auto insurance claims at a far higher rate than the general public, costing California taxpayers nearly $90,000 the past two years, according to records obtained by The Associated Press. Those records show that 10 lawmakers filed more than one claim during the two-year period, including state assembly member Noreen Evans.

ASSEMBLY Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa May 17, 2006, windshield damage, $516.84. Aug. 14, 2006, unspecified damage, $1,506.12.

THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11:00 A.M. AND 12:00 PM, ON 11.21.2002, Docket # 65

Page 14,1 –22
Harris: “This is a computer case where counsel for Mr. Sutcliffe is like a child learning the scales and Killercop is playing Beethoven piano sonatas.  And that’s about where it’s at.  And in MDC [prison] we cannot even have a computer unless I am there, sitting there, with all my other cases, to allow Killercop to have a computer.  So with him –“

Court: “Pleas explain to me why your ability effectively to represent him is dependent upon some level of insight or prowess concerning computer technology that you currently lack.”

Harris: “Because these websites are on disks, it’s a matter of manipulating the disks, going back and forth, pulling this out, pulling that out, cross-checking.  If this second website is allowed to come in, the task is doubled .”

Court:  Would your ability effectively to represent him be enhanced if, at government expense, at public expense, you were allowed to retain an expert?”

Harris: “You know, what it would really be – an easier solution would be to direct MDC to let Killercop have access to that computer in the visiting room without me being there.”

Court: “That I will not do.

Page 14, Line 25 – Page 15, Lines 1-23
Court: “But I thought you’re the one who needs to get the – I don’t mean to minimize what I think you’re telling me, because I am in the same boat as you…”  

Harris: “there’s not enough time if I did it 24 hours between now and December 3 that I’d be able to do this thing adequately.”

Court: “In other words, what you’re saying is that the evidence that has been turned over to you, you need your client to evaluate?”

Harris: “Right.  Its like if he spoke –- If it was in Chinese and he spoke Chinese and I didn’t, and we’re trying to go over and find the gems and uncover them.”

Page 17, Lines 14 – 24
Harris: “No, I mean I’m happy to talk to their investigator, and I don’t that’s as big of a concern as the fact that – the bigger concern is that its tough enough to try represent a client and get ready for trial when they’re in custody anyway, other thing being equal; in a computer case where you’ve got all sorts of computer evidence coupled with the problem that the client has technical expertise that the lawyer doesn’t, it just compounds the issue.  And all I’m saying is if there’s a way that we can address flight and danger where --  “

Judge: “Well, that would be my ruling on it.”

Page 18, Lines 8-17
Judge: “I’m reaching out for ways to make sure that you, who I know to be a very dedicated, skillful lawyer, will be able to get ready for trial and mount an effective defense so if you find there is some kind of benefit that could accrue to your client if an expert were appointed, and you can locate one and set forth standard information about why and what kind of expertise the individual has and what his hourly rate would be, I would be very inclined to grant that application and, as you know, that application  doesn’t have to be made available to the prosecution.”

After you forced your attorney, and left me to the mercy of your pack of wolves, the Warden beeeeeeatch slapped ya and told ya No. So why did you have him tazed and threatened that he would be my cell mate if he didn't follow unlawful orders? But this Warden wasn't about to stick his neck out for your unlawful acts under color of law.

A FLAPDOODLE

FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT

TWITTER

(CENSORED 03.26.2023)

They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing.

"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel

With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation.

TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.

MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE.

LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.