[ Contact Me ]





Revenge
on the
Judicial
System

Don’t Get Mad,
Get Even!


Monkeywrench

by

Thomas Larsen
Judicial Abuse Consultant & Activist











Preliminary Sample Draft  September 1988 by Thomas Larsen

First edition, seventh printing January 2003
v1.8




Printed in the United States of America






Direct comments and/or requests for additional copies
at $15.00 each (for those on bail, probation, parole,
unemployed, or current inmates it’s only $10.00 each) to:

(Special note: This book is an ongoing work in progress but is still available for sale. Because it is referred to quite frequently within the pages of Fedbuster: The Southern California Wildfires of ’93, along with the fact that Snake and his bag of misfits devoured every word of it much like a devout Christian would do with the Word of God, I’m making it available to readers of that book for the reduced rate of $10.00. Just be aware, its language, grammar wise, is still a little rough around the edges and not every paragraph has found its final resting place within the context of those neighbors around it.)



Thomas Larsen
14844 Wyandotte St.
Van Nuys, CA  91405-1823
Fax: (734) 758-4553
tlarsen2@hotmail.com

All orders will be sent in an opaque sealed envelope, I promise.
(Please note: Mail is forwarded to me twice
monthly only from the above private mail box.)

(Special note 2: I am no longer providing printed copies of my books. Instead, readers can download them in Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf) format and either view them on screen or print them out themselves. While you can download them for free, I ask you to consider them as shareware and contribute what you feel they are worth to you. A suggested donation is one half of what I charged for the printed versions, although anything above that amount is always welcome. Click here to download this book. [3 Mb])



Cover Design: The monkey wrench emblem is the recognized symbol for a unity of people who seek to even the score with anyone or any judicial organization who has earned their heartfelt contempt. It signifies the traditional throwing of a monkey wrench into the wheels of the judicial system in order to make them squeak.


















Dedicated to:

The judicially harassed, aggravated, or abused inmates of the Los Angeles County Jail; Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island; California Institution for Men, Chino; Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, San Diego; California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi; California State Prison, Corcoran; Metropolitan Detention Center, Los Angeles; United States Penitentiary, Lompoc; Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, Arizona; Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon; Orange County Jail; and defendants and ex-offenders elsewhere who have contributed their stories and advise – or have merely stimulated my creativity – for this booklet.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface & Disclaimer
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
OATH
Theme “fight” song










If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

–William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice











PREFACE & DISCLAIMER

 

Never underestimate a genius with a chip on his shoulder.
–in the movie Malice

         If you have ever been treated unfairly, lied to or about, victimized, cheated, and/or somehow abused or unnecessarily harassed, threatened (to admit or plead guilty to something you didn’t do), or aggravated, no matter to what extent, by anyone connected in any way with the judicial system – whether while in custody or not – this handy book is for you.
         The term abuse, as used throughout this book includes, but is not limited to, any forms of unfair, unpleasant, and/or unnecessary; physical, mental, emotional, psychological, financial, or even harassing, distress inducing, or mildly aggravating actions, to any degree, which leads to unwarranted uneasiness – whether committed accidentally or on purpose.
         I also consider it abuse for them to act with a double standard and treat a poorer or less-prominent person less favorably, in any way, than a more prominent, respected, or politically-powerful person who is going through the system for a similar judicial matter. Likewise, it is also double-standard abuse to be treated different in any other way due to prejudice or bias (because of race, color, religion, financial condition, sex, sexual orientation, age, position of status in the community, or personal differences or interests) than someone else is.
         This manual contains a collection of costly dirty tricks and underhanded stunts, some with skewed humor (but sometimes such humor is the best medicine to deal with the abuses we suffer), that some people could be, and/or have been, inclined to use in order to even the score with anyone, or any judicial organization, who has earned their heartfelt contempt. It was written for the sole purpose of informing those of facts or methods used or thought of being used. Obviously the events, examples, and descriptions listed could be based upon actual happenings and real people. If in fact there is any similarity between any events that actually happen, it is probably because they did, otherwise any events reported are purely coincidental or accidental. The author and publisher have made every effort to verify the accuracy of the stories depicted below. Details are given only for the purpose of adding realism to the manual and to show what can transpire when some people are unnecessarily wronged. In some cases poetic license was used to add excitement to the events. Several people’s stories could be drawn from the composite experiences of more than one person who was abused in some way. Although two characters or events can be melded into one or split apart to add drama to the story, or innocent victims’ names could be changed to protect their identity, or even the sequence of events could have been slightly rearranged, my goal was always to explore and preserve the essence of the truth and here I promise I have succeeded. I am not “doctoring” this thing. Even with some compression or expansion of events, characters, and/or time, there are no real historical distortions. The emotional truth remains highly accurate.
         In a preliminary sample draft of this booklet I circulated among state prison inmates and various judicial personnel between September 1988 and August 1990 I said that, “last names have been deleted in order to protect the innocent, as well as the guilty.” Because sunlight is the best disinfectant, the best way to expose these insidious abuses is to get them out in the open and available to the public. Therefore, now in the published copy, I see no reason to hide or cover up any dirty rotten scoundrels’ identities or cover up guilty culprits’ misbehaviors any longer. Such lies of omission are outmoded, dishonest, defeat true understanding, and leave an imbalance in the education of society. Any disinformation in relation to powerful people higher up on the judicial totem pole is an unworthy act of man that must be challenged.
         Besides, their actions are part of public records anyway, open to inspection by anybody; and if news organizations can publicly expose the names of misbehaving guilty individuals to national audiences, I surely can. And if private people can notify neighbors when recently-paroled child molesters are living nearby, I surely can. This is done so people can keep an eye out to make sure they don’t misbehave again. It is no different with misbehavior-prone judicial personnel. These malefactors’ behavior can lead to dangerous conduct being caused just as bad, so we should tell on their tales too. Guilty culprits included here are identified in their true identities with warts and all.
         While not specifically intending to embarrass any individual or organization, certain individuals may experience some embarrassment nonetheless. If so, it is solely on account of their own actions that are merely reported on as they truthfully happened. The chips are allowed to fall where they may. The reader is welcome to arrive at their own conclusions. I welcome any feedback, criticism, suggestions, or money anyone wishes to throw my way – although donations are not actively solicited.
         The incidents depicted are for entertainment, amusement, and protective purposes only. They are in no way intended to be other than educational and/or instructional. They are not portrayed with the intent of helping to promote methods, actions, or devices which assist others in breaking the law. This is not a handbook to be used as a guide meant to be put into practical use. It does not encourage breaking laws. Each individual has the responsibility to make up his or her own mind as to whether or not to do so, or even how far they wish to go to even the score, if they in their own mind of their free will even choose to do so at all. Likewise, this material is not advising, recommending, inducing, counseling, commanding, cajoling, organizing, procuring, soliciting, aiding, abetting, instigating, inciting, enticing, assisting, promoting, teaching, endorsing, or advocating anyone to break any laws, produce imminent lawless action, or willfully cause the commission of any offense or crime. It is not treasonous and is against the overthrow of the government and anyone who endeavors to persuade anyone to engage in such conduct. It merely is actively against the abusive actions of certain members employed by, or working on behalf of, that government. Nothing here is intended to obstruct justice in any way. On the contrary, our goal is merely to bring real justice for all concerned. Nor is any conspiracy taking place as defined by conspiracy laws as no one is together agreeing to cooperate or engage in criminal activity together. I’m merely reporting as an author. Not encouraging, but merely “suggest” what “should” be done, and sometimes, “actively suggest” what others “should” do. “Speak favorably” is a term I like to use. The author disclaims any responsibility for all liability and/or damages. Although this book is about revenge, the author expressly disclaims responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the use of techniques described within. Neither the author nor the publisher assumes any responsibility for the use or misuse of information contained in this book or for any infringements of rights of third parties that may arise from the use of any information in this book or from the ideas portrayed in its stories. I assume no responsibility for the readers’ performance or actions or behavior towards any of the actions and/or deeds mentioned herein and shall not be held liable for any direct or indirect damages resulting from their use. Under no circumstances, including negligence, will the author or the publisher assume any liabilities, or be liable to anyone, for any incidental, special, or consequential damages of any kind that may result from the information contained herein, its use, or non-use, even if the writer has been advised of the possibly of such damages. It is sold for entertainment purposes only. Be warned.
         The publication of dirty tricks such as these should not be construed as prima facie evidence that the author supports or condemns the ideas therein, in whole or part, nor that those ideas represent the personal views of the author in all cases. Freedom of the press in this country was founded on the concept of the citizenry making informed decisions through an open marketplace of ideas. May the best ideas win.
         While it is not my intention to encourage illegal behavior, I do invite public support for the problem in hopes the judicial system will reconsider their abusive actions. In the meantime, the only authority my opinions have are the value that a growing assortment of individuals are adopting similar opinions towards judicial abuse. Truly, the judicial system is in deep doo doo! It had better police their own members’ deeds.
         Our disclosure of guilty culprits’ identities is also not meant to be slanderous within the legal definition in that it has good motives encouraging offenders to correct their behavior and therefore has justifiable ends. Our obvious intent is to advocate for changes away from abuses which will aid in preventing the tragic kinds of lashing out incidents we’ve depicted. Anything we can do to prevent these injustices benefits not only the individual victim(s), but all of society.
         There, that should make judicial personnel cringe at the thought they cannot prosecute me for a not-extensive-enough disclaimer. Just in case, I’ll add that it is not my intent – specific, general, or otherwise – to violate any laws in my writings or speakings. Every attempt has been made to avoid violating the law in all wording contained in this book. All such statements I make are to be considered conditional statements. Conditional on the assumption that they are legal to say without breaking any laws. If I slip up, meaning the condition has not been met, consider them not only inadvertent and immediately withdrawn as if they never existed in the first place – but also not stated. My specific intention is to obey the law in all behavior, words, and writings for the remainder of my life. Due to the complexities of our legal system though, I could conceivably do, say, or write something I do not know is illegal. If so, consider it inadvertent and corrected as soon as I become aware of it.
         In fact, this book is still basically in the sample stage after all these years – I am still testing the waters for its language content. After all the additions since my “silently” approved sample draft was circulated several years ago, some new questionable language bordering on illegality may have inadvertently slipped by my scrutiny. If, due to my carelessness, it has, it is purely accidental and not intentional in any way. My only intent is to obtain a Maximum Irritation Factor (MIF) of the judicial system and, of course, make up monies I should not have lost – currently up in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
         Although it’s conceivable someone could pick up an idea or two to help themselves quell an anger, it is no different from a person watching a crime television show and picking up an idea or two on how to accomplish a crime. If that were illegal, many shows would be off the air.
         While encouraging someone to break the law is illegal, it is not illegal to have a personal belief and/or opinion about a matter and how one would like to see someone handle it, or even wish someone would handle it. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about expressing opinions we may have in a free enterprise democratic system. This is the United States of America where the First Amendment of our Constitution allows us to have our own opinions and beliefs. This booklet is filled with opinions and beliefs of not only the author, but of the many people confidentially interviewed in the process of research. As a consultant to the judicially abused, the author freely gives his opinions and ideas to anyone interested, whether they are a victim of abuse or not. Although I no longer intend to do some of the imaginative antics I once did, which we report on here, I honestly do believe that such things can stir up the judicial community – and it’s sure time something does! And as I have been known to say in the past, “nothing fixes a situation better than a well thought out, aggravation inducing, non-violent revenge played to the max.” : - )
         As an avenger with nearly three decades under my belt, I tend to favor the vandalism aspect of revenge. That’s my opinion, and my position. I believe it, and I say it. If somebody doesn’t like it, well, too bad! Deal with it! If it is Constitutionally permitted and not illegal for MTV’s cartoon characters Beavis and Butt-Head to say “fire is fun” and “let’s set something on fire” then surely it is O.K. and legal for me to say “revenge is fun, we should seek it in non-violent ways when we’re wronged.” That show’s producers may get criticized, but that’s all they can do. Heck, their disclaimer isn’t even as thorough as mine. To the reader it will appear the author reasonably knows what he is writing about and has put a lot of research into his work to make it legal to distribute. Boo hoo judicial system. Cry your eyes out. : - ( You should have thought of that before you treated me unfairly.
         And that’s not the only examples I’ve got. If Zsa Zsa Gabor can tell the world in the November 28, 1994 issue of People magazine, Vol. 42, No. 22, page 194, “First of all, we have to slap the police around a little bit” and not get in trouble; and if some pro-life zealots can say that abortion doctors should be shot to save babies and not get in trouble; and if Catholic Priests can go on talk shows, like Geraldo in January 1995, and tell the world that doctors that perform abortions are mass murderers and should be killed and not get in trouble; and if former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates can say that drug dealers should be shot and not get in trouble; and if radio talk show host, and convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy, can suggest aiming for the head and groin (as they have body armor) if ATF agents break in without a warrant and not get in trouble; and if Phoenix, Arizona conservative talk-show host Bob Mohan can openly agree with Liddy’s comment on his May 10, 1995 show and not get in trouble; and if music rapper Ice Tea can sing about shooting cops and not get in trouble; then surely I can say what merely should happen to those who violate us and not get in trouble. People can dislike my opinions all they want – or hate it that I express them – but they can’t say that they are illegal to verbalize. It’s one thing to get stabbed in the back; it’s quite another to have it turned and turned and turned. I am angry about some things that have happened to me and I’m not going to be silent about them. So boo hoo again!
         And for those readers out there who don’t like my arrogant tone as I belittle our criminal-justice system. First off, I’m only reporting what they did. Don’t stone the messenger. Besides, freedom of speech protects not only that which the majority agrees, but also the minority. Our country was built upon many ideas, one of which was freedom of speech. While laws and morals vary among countries and, indeed, among people living within those countries, most people ultimately want the same thing. The ability to live their lives as best they can, without hurting others in the process or being hurt in return. Keep that in mind as you live your own life. God bless the First Amendment! : - )
         Although this discourse does not suggest or recommend that any person should do any illegal methods to even the score, it strongly advocates, and one of our purposes here is to stimulate others, that something must be done in order to stop the abuses and/or unfair actions some of us have had inflicted upon us by someone who is in some way employed by or in the judicial system. This can include, but is not limited to: judges, district attorneys, U.S. attorneys, probation officers, parole officers, correctional officers, sheriffs, police officers, jailers, government peace officers such as members of the Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, ATF, IRS, Coast Guard, & U.S. Customs personnel, and all the numerous support people associated with these and other organizations not mentioned. Nothing in my wording is intended to be a threat of any kind, but rather my statements are merely words of advice on expected proper conduct judicial personnel should adopt and follow.
         It should also be mentioned my 1988 sample draft included the following statement:

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SAMPLE DRAFT FOR DISPLAY
PURPOSES ONLY, NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR SALE AT
THIS TIME. THE AUTHOR APPRECIATES FEEDBACK
FROM INDIVIDUALS AND ENCOURAGES ANYONE TO SUB-
MIT ANY CONFIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS THEY WISH TO HAVE
CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION. CRITICISM ON
THOROUGHNESS OF DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE IS SOLICI-
TED FROM THOSE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THIS AREA…

         Various judicial personnel who were sent, or in some way provided with, a copy of my early booklet included: Manhattan Beach Police Department; Municipal Court Judge William G. Willett, Torrance (current location unknown); Superior Court Judge Cecil J. Mills, Torrance (as of January 1998 he was a Juvenile Court Judge at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court, 7281 E. Quill Dr., Downey, CA  90242-2096. (562) 491-8841.); head District Attorney in 1989, Torrance Courts; Mr. W. Kitchell, Program Administrator Unit 2, California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi; Lt. J. M. Ferguson, Unit 2, California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi; Ms. Mary Figueroa, Correctional Counselor 1, California Institution for Men, Chino; Detective Roger D. Ott, Bakersfield Police Department; Special Agent Richard G. Palacios, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Special Agent Michael P. Gleysteen, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF); Mr. Gregory W. Jessner, United States Attorney, Los Angeles; United States Probation Officer R. William Crovella II; United States District Judge Harry L. Hupp; Mr. David L. Wisehart, Unit Manager, Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, Arizona; Municipal Court Commissioner Louie L. Vega, Bakersfield; Municipal Court Judge Susanne S. Shaw, Newport Beach; and various other state & federal prison and court officials – some higher ranking. Besides these judicial personnel, a private citizen, Mrs. Margaret A. Reeves of Manhattan Beach was also sent a copy in December 1988. It is noteworthy that even though each one had an opportunity to respond, not one of these characters, or any others for that matter, complained that my test booklet’s language violated the law. While there were grumbling complaints about its content by some of the recent examiners (only since 1993), that’s a far cry from proclaiming a law had been broken. No such proclamations, in my mind, means approval by silence – everyone remained neutral. Clearly, the legality of my wording in that sample passed with flying colors. I offer my thanks for the time they put in in reviewing my work.
         Since that time though, extensive material has been added and my disclaimer has been expanded greatly to cover my ass from all possible judicial attacks. I’m sure certain people I’ve irritated want to nit-pick my words apart to try to find a violation of law committed in these writings. To those so inclined I say you should have thought about the possibility of repercussions by me before you violated me (especially those who knew I was so inclined) and you should be more concerned about smoothing over my ruffled feathers rather than ruffling them up to a point beyond any hope of smoothing them over ever again. Get your priorities on the right thing people. You have the advantage of hindsight again. Don’t screw it up! Don’t come out goats again like too many of you have already done.
         The only major change since that first trial version, other than length, is that I have been able to strengthen the manuscript and sharpen my position (particularly in response to how much more serious of a threat they really are to us all), with the result that the book is, I believe, a much better presentation.
         While no one objected to my sample draft, it is also true that no one submitted an explanation for their misactions (or actions depending on one’s interpretation) that brought them to the forefront and worthy of inclusion herein. Because this work is on computer and can be updated frequently I leave an open invitation to anybody to explain why they did what they did, and I promise I will retype their side of the story word for word and include it in the very next reprint.
         If anyone still sees my disclaimer as not sufficient even after “approval” by the above listed illustrious reviewers speak up now or forever hold your peace and I’ll make phrasing changes where necessary.

***

         All that us people who have been abused and/or somehow treated unfairly need to do for these officials to succeed is to do nothing. No one can do everything, but each of us can do something. Each of us counts. We live in the society we allow to continue. Just sitting back and doing nothing isn’t good enough any more. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. First, as people interested in judicial abuse – judicial malpractice if you will – reform, we need to recognize our common goal and take the necessary steps to achieve it. We need to help others like ourselves understand the importance of these issues. We need to take active steps to safeguard each of us victims from the moment the abuse is first afflicted upon us until its last and final vestiges are resolved to our satisfaction. We need to create appropriate restrictions on our abusers in order to limit the damage these insensitive folks are capable of creating. We need to spotlight the absurdities in the judicial system if we are ever going to have a chance at eliminating them. Whatever you/we do, don’t leave it to the other guy. We cannot wait for others to solve the problem for us; there isn’t enough time for that. We need action now! The inequalities and injustices can be changed. We all have it within our power to make it better for us, or at least keep it from getting worse. With unity, this can be accomplished. We won’t always succeed – but unless we try, we can’t possibly succeed. Just remember, these things happen to us because we allow them to happen. We have the ultimate responsibility to determine our fate. If we’re going to keep on getting abused, it’s on us for allowing it! Remember that folks.
         While the tragedy of child abuse is a current hot item of discussion, we need to raise the consciousness about the tragedy and cost of judicial abuse. Costs, of course, consisting of emotional, physical, and financial. We need to rectify the errors and consequent injustices with which well-meaning or otherwise “justice” people are inadvertently or otherwise using to persecute innocent people. We need to help them begin to adopt enlightened policies to ward off retaliations in their various forms. Most people are humble enough to realize that the good of society at large must be preferred to the individual good. Unfortunately, most do not see that treating the individual with more care will be for the good of society.
         If you have contempt, hatred, animosity, spite, and/or disgust for some unfair acting person or judicial organization, now is the time to jump on the bandwagon. Now is the time to lay the groundwork to sensitize others to the plight we face. Have the courage of your convictions. If you really believe in something; act upon it. Don’t walk away from a battle on principle. The time has come for us to branch out. We need a mild non-violent rebellion. We need an uprising similar to the civil rights’ movement of the 1960s. If enough of us takes offense and acts upon it something can be done. More of us need to take these abuses on a personal level. The few of us currently involved in counteracting them are not enough. We must be conscious of our own united strength, because until we become so, we can never rebel. We need to breed awareness to save ourselves. If we chose to unite and fight today, we’d have so much pressure on the abusers that they would be forced to use alternative methods of behavior more conductive to fairness. Collectively as a group, we need only to rise up and act; together we can change what we cannot – or should not have to – accept. Keep in mind that abusive practices are most often only changed when challenged. Let’s not be beaten down by the bureaucracy any longer. Let us victims show that we will not tolerate it ever again from irresponsible “professional” people who are suppose to know better. If they keep trying to shove that crap down your throat that you have to take it, let them know you’re the wrong person to screw over or rip off! Punch holes in their kind of reasoning. Pop their bubble. Let them know you’re as mad (judicially frustrated) as hell and won’t take it any longer! Give them their wake-up call. Emphasize the issues of economics, which sway votes of every town council and county supervisor, to anyone who will look bad if our responses happen. Let them know a little consideration now may be a small cost to pay for the safety of society later. This stance or attitude says, “don’t mess with me.” It looks at the reality of the situation and deals with it straight on. Now is the time to use the only weapon we have. Figuratively (and literally if possible) wave a scolding finger in their face. If it’s done efficiently they’ll wish they had acted properly and when you reach that level of understanding you’ll know that you’ve won. You won’t feel helpless any more. You won’t be a victim any more.
         One time when I was in prison and complained to an officer about an improper action perpetrated against me by another officer it brought a response from him something to the nature of, “you don’t know where you are,” seeming to imply that I had no choice but to accept it. Well he didn’t know who he was allowing to get cheated and I made sure he knew it too; just before I transferred from that location.
         We need to make our oversized bureaucracies sensitive to community problems and the need for fair and equitable policies by judicial system personnel, particularly with regard to the times they handle individuals that are inclined to be outraged by impropriety.
         To deny that discrimination against us has not been prevalent, in regard to judicial treatment, takes naiveté to a new height. If this were substance abuse we were talking about we’d call it being in a state of denial. The implementation of creative and progressive non-discriminatory judicial policies to meet the requirements of our community of offenders is the least that should be expected in our “world class” country – the United Stated of America.
         This may strike real fear into those who are doing just fine personally with the current state of affairs. If so – so be it. Be advised, trying to change an inept “non-system” into a streamlined judicial system will run you right into the keepers of the status quo. Expect that. History demonstrates that justice is sometimes slow to prevail for the proponents of unorthodox ideas. That’s always the case when diehard set-in-their-ways folks get their hooks dug in. Much can be done though. Advising and educating others on the value of change, and sometimes even more, can be quite effective if continued long enough to become a recognized part of abused people’s opinion. Someday, if we keep up the pressure, the heat will die down and others will be alert to the inconsistencies in current abusive ideas. Hopefully “professional” myopia will be overcome by less fettered thinkers as we make our point known. Eventually truth will prevail, but only if we keep our efforts in their faces. Raising these issues in this way strikes at the very heart of the judicial system’s basic design; leading to spirited discussions with conclusions being far from unanimous. Well, no one said it was going to be an easy job; but somebody’s gotta’ do it. Somebody has to put a checks and balances on them. Somebody has to muzzle them.
         These changes are a lot easier to live with than the alternate repercussions that come up for air. Opposition to our views are really just a symptom of a larger problem that should be the real focus of attention. Ultimately, the world will adjust to these changes just as it did to many others in the past.
         What is so bad is that through the years, so many of us have just put up with this belittling kind of behavior as if it were normal. Yes, there are many of us that have been victimized. Judicial-abuse victims are about as rare as a pigeon in a city park. Sometimes slogans, images, platitudes, and half-truths make us accept the political and social status quo as natural. Ideology blinds us to material circumstances. It may have seemed normal that inequality is an unalterable law of human life. This doctrine is, of course, false. There is a perception among the general public, fueled by media reports sponsored by politicians, that get tough policies must be more firmly established. Our viewpoint, obviously, differs here too. This perception operates on the level that the general public genuinely believes that the more these policies are in effect, the safer they will be in the long run. Our ideas may be intimidating to the general public, and even annoying, but like most new things, they’re really neutral. While these ideas are new to many, they aren’t to those of us who have lived through some of the crap we have. They’re bound to upset many because we have no context to discuss such things – no other reference of similar abuse so actively has ever been spoken about with such vigor. We must never be silenced again – no matter what! Silence is NOT golden – speak out, act out, fight back; and don’t let anyone screw you over!
         People become desensitized to the violation of civil rights for a non-favored group if the violations happen so regularly that they seem normal and therefore morally right. Worse yet, these abuses are often defended by people in high political positions who consider themselves enlightened and progressive. As we will see, there is – and well should be – a hidden price to these kinds of practices.
         Tragically, some of these officials have been known to do something for self-interest reasons, that is actually less good or beneficial for society in general, than our actions have been. In some cases they have been down right wrong – morally and/or legally. Then when discovered, they may be given a mere slap on the wrist in relation to what one of us would be given for doing something of a nearly equivalent nature or, more tragically, some of these scoundrels are even immune from criminal prosecution altogether. (And judges can’t even be sued in civil court for their official actions. For federal judges, they can’t even be fired.) Then there are the times that there is so much support for some kinds of actions of behavior that everyone is literally blinded to the fact of how wrong and damaging these things really are. Why does the judicial heart have so many dark places? I wonder how some people can sleep at night. There’s got to be a better way, they’re not that inept. These kinds of actions are reflective of what I would deem an increasingly simplistic attitude toward the real world. Perhaps the issue of apathy should be examined more closely.
         Some may be inclined to believe they could be excused in this matter because it is the “spirit of the age.” Hogwash! Whose age is it? And who made it so? The judicial system. It’s their world. For years now they’ve been training the world to be in total subjection to them. They actually expected their subjects to bow to their every whim and accept whatever they dealt out as if it were normal. They actually expected no one would have the courage to buck the status quo. They actually expected they would come out the winner. Not too hip are they? While this range of thinking may have had some benefit in the past, it is shortsighted and economically harmful today. These are the ’90s; we don’t play that game any longer! We’re not defendants or inmates from your father’s era.
         Being blinded to how wrong and damaging some things really are is not limited to judicial matters. It was much the same with the environment. For years we polluted our air and trashed our dumps with no concern for the future. We kept throwing stuff in our dumps thinking it was a big bottomless hole that will never fill up. Well that’s not true. The same goes for judicial abuse. They think they can keep dumping on us and that we’ll keep accepting it. Well we won’t! We’re not a public dump open for use any longer.
         The judicial system can be a wonderful thing in the right context, but it is also merciless and without foresight on too many occasions. There is an important sense in which the playing field is tilted against defendant/victims. That tilt comes from what public-minded people call “victims’ rights.” Victims in this definition meaning victims of the crimes we commit – not us who have been victimized by the judicial system. Currently the deck seems to be stacked in favor of the plaintiff/victims. The question is; do we defendant/victims have what it takes to stand on our own and fight back? We better! We need to make people look at us as real legitimate victims with just as much vigor as they look at those other victims. After all, the definition of a victim is a person who has had something wrong done to them. That fits us all in.
         Real efforts to change the status quo won’t be made until judicial abuse – meaning seeing us as the victims – becomes part of the political agenda, and some feel that won’t happen until some of the dire consequences of retribution truly hits home. Will they let it get that bad? Aren’t they already? Finding a place on the political agenda requires feasible solutions. More radical solutions may be in order if just planning fails to become part of the political decision making. In the end, the real solution will be to effect awareness – a widespread consciousness that even minor forms of abuse can threaten the entire goals of the system. The only reason today’s abuse looks O.K. to so many is that we’ve been looking at it for such a long time. We’re used to seeing it that way. Otherwise, even the most minor kinds presents a pretty unusual and horrible picture. There’s nothing to say that different methods won’t work just because we’re not used to seeing them that way. In fact, a different type of setup will be able to work better. This is our goal here, to see that different setup instituted.

         As victims of abuse at the hands of the judicial system, we must understand the reality of the situation – that there has been and continues to be an invasion. A massive crucifixion is going on in the form of a serious plague, rivaling in its intensity any plague of the Middle Ages. Amid all the suffering there is a mass hysteria and fear that leads to persecution and hideous injustice by the community at large. These ghosts of oppressive teaching should have been exorcised a generation ago – but tragically, many in the general public still believe them. The more evidence we present, the more obstinate they become. They appear just like a big machine with no off button. Truly, we have our work cut out for us if we’re going to cleanse the last poisonous vestiges of prejudice from the judicial community. These judicial leaders will do, say, or teach anything – even use threats – to keep a us from having a true shake. How else to enslave free people. This is the real abuse and sickness in our society – the real immorality. Any preaching or teaching that turns its back on the future and promotes dishonesty and prejudice is a sick philosophy.
         You know, past efforts at legal reform have often brought forth the irrational contention that ex-offenders do more harm to society than a person who has never come to the attention of the judicial system. And the more severe legal penalties imposed on those who have offended in the past testify to the effectiveness of that sick contention. Don’t let them continue to hurt you with improper thinking! Don’t let them play God with your life! They can only own you if they screw you over and you let them! Don’t give them that power over you. Take your power back! Be your own person! If they want to play God they should practice His love and compassion first.
         No matter where, or from whom, judicial abuse raises its head and unmasks its ugly face we need to be ready to chop it off. We cannot just hope that the public’s infatuation with it will go away on its own. We must speak out whenever we can – to discuss such shortcomings and to encourage an interest in the real world around us where clearly a good percentage of us are ex-offenders. We must stand up to this infringement of our freedom. We must put a stop to this and other governmental abuses of our freedom before we become a society not worth living in. They must understand it is not O.K. to victimize us just because we have broken a law. And it is not O.K. to merely slap our abusers on the wrist then they are caught. They must be held to the same standards of conduct as we would be and punished the same as we would be for the same crime. Shame on anyone who doesn’t make it happen that way. Keeping the country lawful does not entitle them to become lawless. They need to be taught this with all the force and vigor we can muster! As a country that advocates for human rights for others, make sure we get ours!
         When social structures oppress human dignity and freedom and maintain situations of gross inequality, the persons who share life within these situations also share responsibility for allowing them to continue. There is a need and an obligation to undertake a process of consciousness-raising, whereby these injustices and the structures that support them can be identified. Education will awaken a critical sense, which will lead us to reflect on the society in which we live and on its values; it will make people ready to renounce these values when they cease to promote justice for all people. If we remain silent, we are guilty of passive abuse. That, and interfering with the natural and truthful growth of another human being are the real sins. Let us not allow another generation to grow up tied to a primitive fantasy that we are worthy unfairness and these abuses are par for the course. Never again should we be content to suffer prejudice and injustice passively. Remember, the non-caring values toward ex-offenders that are taught today will affect future generations. Silence=abuse=death. We must not let them win this because of our silence and lack of action. We need to heed the call to action and put constraints on their abuses and muzzle their mouths. We must band together and make sure those responsible are exposed in all possible ways. If they are aggravated in the process, then all the better. That’s just gravy.
         The Jewish community actively educates people about the sufferings they endured during World War II so society is never again permitted to commit such atrocities. And in regular grade school history classes children are now taught about the holocaust during their studies of that period. Yet how many know that criminal offenders are subjected to abusive and unfair tactics to this day? Why do teachers leave this aspect of truth out of their lesson plans? Is it because we are not speaking up as the Jewish community is? Is it because to textbook authors or teachers we are a people not worth mentioning any more than they have to? If this is the case, it is giving a bad image to the students who have offenders in their family and that is a dangerous practice. The moral is we have to speak up; to get the word out. Silence=abuse=death. The tragedy that happened to us is just as important and worth mentioning. As a group we can change what we cannot and should not accept. Remember, if you don’t demand respect and proper treatment no one else is going to demand it for you. The decision is yours; you can accept the abuse or take action on your own. Did you ever get the feeling that somebody was jerking your chain? Did you ever wish little ol’ you could jerk back? Well you can! Let’s look at it from the perspective of a mosquito. The judicial system may be a big body but if we – the mosquito – bite in just the right tender spot it – the body – just may stop long enough to scratch.
         Even if our activism is as minor as speaking up in a correcting tone of voice when someone says a disparaging remark about us, that’s a start. In a smaller way, those too shy about mentioning judicial abuse issues directly can still speak positively about differences, appreciation, compassion, and acceptance of people in general. An ex-offender teacher I know, fearful of losing his job, emphasizes these admirable qualities to his students but goes no further about discussing people considered lower down on the totem pole. In some way we each – offender and never having been an offender alike – can be a voice of reason in a crusade for a healthy, bountiful earth. Every little bit helps. Remember, there’s no such thing as a healthy prejudice. There are enough rough areas of life not to add any excess baggage. Such destructive teachings must cease. If you don’t speak up; they can’t grow.
         There’s one more thing I should add while on the subject of silence. Some say they don’t mind that we’re former offenders if we’d just shut up about it; no more bitching about our mistreatment etc. Well I ask, where would the black movement or the women’s movement be if some brave souls didn’t step forward and speak out? Women may still not be able to vote and black slavery may have been a common late 20th century practice. The insights derived from these movements have rendered us all sensitive to the depersonalized and unequal status of these citizens in our culture. Truly this is no time to backslide – on their issues or ours – no time to remain silent and accepting of the status quo. Take a stand! Shake it up! Onward to equality and fairness for everybody!

         The law itself is fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, but when it’s applied and administered by public authorities with an evil eye and an unequal hand, that’s when the possibility for abuse is great. We need to understand though that people with these views – with some exceptions – aren’t always inherently evil. Some only suffer from human stupidity and frailty. (And those that are evil animals to some degree each have their own personality; some are just meaner than others.) They just get caught up in something they believe in. And they believe, after awhile, that because their views are shared by a majority of “good” citizens, that their actions are justified. The force and dynamics of a large majority can make it much harder for smaller minority groups (or even individuals) to question powerful “leaders.” Even seemingly benign groups, from political organizations to teenage crowds, hold sway over individuals. One of the indexes of a major group’s potential danger is the extent to which it glaringly looms over others in an intimidating way. When a group’s sense of reality is distorted, it must be challenged. We just need to let them know we won’t stand for it in any way any longer! We need to intimidate them back into the woodwork. We need to depose such destructive leaders.
         If there is any one thing that will hold us back, it is our failure to recognize that each one of us – as individuals – holds the key to changing the world. The political will that is needed to implement the necessary changes will come from the individual resolve within each of us. As individuals, we can provide leadership in helping others change their abusive ways. This small step alone can add up to nationwide and maybe even worldwide change. Institutions, from near and far are only as good as each and every one of their constituents. All great accomplishments have a simple beginning. We may be small as a grain of sand, but together we can make a difference, and the grain of sand can become a moving force that will save us. Never doubt that a small group of concerned people can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. If you think that one small person can’t make a difference when up against the mighty government just remember the Biblical story of how mighty Goliath was slain by diminutive David. When we all work together, a united-level law opposite of Murphy’s Law will eventually come into effect; “Anything that should be set right sooner or later will be.” Ah. Slowly we will be able to shine bright in the firmament of human-kind as we expose abusive teachings and actions for what they truly are and resolve to never again accept them in any form. Just don’t give up or give in, because if you do that’s like saying you’re satisfied with their reasoning – and when you do that, they win. And that’s surely something we don’t need. Many rights were gained by other minority groups who came before us only because someone refused to accept defeat. Many scientific advances have been accomplished only because someone refused to accept it couldn’t be done. All we have to do is refuse to give up or give in. We have the power; we have the desire; we have the will – let’s use them!!!
         Actually many may support our viewpoint presented here, but would not publicly admit it because of fear of rejection and being branded. Unfortunately, even with so much overwhelming evidence to support a more fair-minded liberal view, hardcore conservatives – I call them counterfeit law-enforcement personnel – will still not admit their errors or modify their traditional activities. Why? They have committed themselves to their viewpoint so strong and have gathered so much support. Because of that, they work to subtly justify their preconceived ideas at any cost rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts that would hurt their cause. In some cases, they may make such an issue out their “correct” behavior because they are having a hard time convincing themselves that how they act is the right way. Maybe they just feel better when they are able to gloat about their “correct” way of acting and someone else’s “incorrect” way of acting. What is so bad is they will pronounce moral judgment on us when we lash back at their misbehavior they actually expected us to blindly accept without a whimper. That those of us lower down the judicial totem pole actually have the courage to fight back for the fairness due us has them perplexed, so off guard do we sometimes catch them. They actually don’t seem to understand it when we do like kinds of deeds back to them.
         Our judicial system is in the uncomfortable position of counting on nothing short of actually expecting us to accept and walk away from unfair kinds of actions. Experience is slowly beginning to tell us that this is an unreasonable expectation. Forecasts seem to indicate that our most costly disasters are yet to come. Understanding citizens that are judicially abused to any degree – widely acknowledged as the weakest link in the judicial-system chain – is an art that needs to become a science if we are to diminish the errors that loom as potential disasters. But we’ll probably never eliminate these glitches altogether. The utmost challenge should be to plan for the inevitable breakdowns and make sure those guilty are held accountable for the reactions they cause. Within the infrastructure of the judicial system must be built ways to work with these kinds of reactions in mind. It is the kind of scenario judicial-system experts should fear most. A minor, virtually undetectable error by one member of the judicial community can, and has, opened a small window of vulnerability – and a disastrous storm of repercussions blows in, knocking down abusive person after abusive person domino fashion. Breakdowns such as this have focused new attention on a largely unspoken apprehension; the potential for sudden and ruinous failure even in seemingly well-monitored judicial districts. Indeed, many are becoming to believe incidents such as these exemplifies the precarious state we’re now in. While the judicial system has matured predictably into a more complex state, the defendants at the low end of the totem pole are still an untamed beast. As we demonstrate, even one minor oversight can bring an otherwise robust system to its knees. Isn’t it high time they sit up and take notice? Isn’t it high time the judicial system admits its damaging errors and resolves to mend its iniquitous ways?
         Hopefully our study here will be thorough enough to prompt those of a conservative inclination that there is no legitimate reason to continue their oppressive attitudes toward other people. They can use their time more wisely if they were to direct their energies toward something that would lead to positive rather than negative changes in society. Positive teaching is teaching fairness and respect for all people, whether they are criminal offenders or not. These more lenient policies may not be popular with the general public and they won’t garner votes for elected officials – but they work, and they are cost effective; trust me!
         If we don’t demand what we know is right, no one is going to give it to us. Black slaves had to band together and by doing so they were freed. We too must band together and no longer let anyone rip us off. If enough of us speak out, we can stop the abuse. If we all have the same response for our perpetrator(s) they will then have to comply. We just need to stick together. By lack of protest we tacitly support these kinds of actions. Silence from us is interpreted as though we approve of our treatment and that is surely not the message we want to send. With strong support we can bring real pressure upon others to maintain a reasonable level of fairness and propriety.
         Reaching our ultimate goal will require bold and even somewhat unorthodox steps. Sometimes it is the unorthodox that advances our civilization. We must all do our part to enlighten and educate those less informed that fairness is on a continuum with the best interests for all concerned.
         Today’s dictum of throwing away the key is not advisable or practical. Other methods are proving cheaper and probably just as effective, if not more so. Political agendas and the personal philosophies of a general insensitive and uninformed public are to be blamed for the spread of an acceptance of harsh and disparate sentences in too many cases throughout the country, rather than any current evidence to see if the approach works. We need to show how it sometimes doesn’t. Too much emphasis is placed on harshness, and too little on the basic rights of minor criminals. Jail, prison, harsh fines, or confiscations should not be such a common remedy so often. These methods of disposition may have strong community support – but at what cost? While actions such as these may be designed to limit criminal conduct, in far far too many cases we are seeing they are having the opposite effect. By overlooking the enormous hidden costs, these single-minded tactics are a threat to all of us. As we can see, they sometimes do not uphold the law nor create order. Those who propose these methods are missing the point of reality. Actually sentences like these do little more than fulfill the political needs of public officials who are experiencing the pressure from typical “public-minded” people to get tough. What will it take to convince some people? What will it take to counteract the judicial system’s stubborn refusal to look beyond its own limited line of sight and start thinking about long-range safety needs? We spend too much of our time focusing on the events of the moment that have no lasting significance and ignore long-lasting events that are going to affect people in the long-range future. When will that backward thinking change? Some will not believe the sun rises in the morning until someone proves it to then empirically. The fact that legislators have lobbied these policies into existence is sad. Even sadder is that people institute them knowing full well the problems they cause. If they make decisions on the basis of what’s politically acceptable, rather than what’s right, make sure they get some bad press. See to it they get the opposite of what they’re trying to accomplish. Let our responses be a wake-up call against others pouring money into such logic.
         Without a systematic change in attitude, we can look forward to more lashing out and more meaningless apologies. Incidents of revenge have clearly exposed the judicial system’s inability to protect all the interrelated elements of society. The judicial system has been concerned and is actively campaigning to improve various aspects of society. There has been some good accomplished, however, they have overlooked a critical element in their fight to preserve societies’ safety. While they are fighting their fight, the pressures of revenge are subverting their efforts from unseen directions. The reduction of those things that bring these tendencies to the surface should be the one single most important aspect on the anti-abuse movement. Without a change in the judicial-system’s attitude, the good and worthwhile efforts of the jurists are, at best, delaying actions and, at worst, akin to bailing out the ocean with a bucket.
         When we saw the movies Speed and Blown Away in prison a few years ago some inmates were particularly intrigued with the techniques involved, one especially when he heard a bomb could be made with baking soda. And in the movie The Specialist with Sylvester Stallone in 1994 inmates liked and cheered the revenge aspect of each act of explosive vengeance. How many of us have the particular psychological profile of a bomber or serial something? How many of us are far enough from that point but become closer after getting kicked in the teeth over and over by the judicial system? Think about it folks! Is this get tough crap really protecting society or is it just delaying an explosive outcome a few years down the line when it can have time to gain strength? Doesn’t defusing it earlier make more sense? Think, think hard folks. Is what I’m saying beginning to sink in a little bit?
         And when inmates found out that the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 was in retaliation for Waco some of them were especially happy. Like Rush Limbaugh said after the bombing, “such a wake-up call this is.” Truer words have never been spoken. While such disasters are a tragedy, the government has to be aware that when they continually screw people over and over without any amount of acceptance of responsibility things such as these are going to happen from time to time. It’s just the law of averages, probabilities; and that’s one law no one can break. Yes, there were innocent victims of that bombing. However, it was our government aggression that drew first blood and forced such a tragic event. Regrettable as it was, such consequences should serve as a warning to the judicial system. We won’t stand for any more Wacos or Ruby Ridges – period!
         The major thesis of this commentary is that this nation does not now need more severe punishments. It does need new thinking, especially with respect to the unnecessary enormous quantity of pain and suffering they are causing. It does need to recognize the danger from a national perspective and initiate a program that will factor it into the equation. Our present independent American judicial system will need help as they have been unable to sustain any real commitment to alternative courses of action. Their answer to enact more severe punishments is actually increasing the likelihood of retribution in one form or another – a solution this nation cannot afford any longer. We seek to be a voice of reason in our crusade for a healthy, fair, and bountiful earth.
         A different standard of justice needs to be instituted. If we really want people to uphold the law we must help stop the stampede of Orwellian officials who use methods that may not be the most appropriate, fair, or wise. This includes every person involved with the judicial system that the defendant comes in contact with, from the first arresting officer on day one, court personnel as they proceed through the court processes, prison staff once they are sentenced, and all the way through parole or supervising officers up to their last day on supervision. That should be a primary goal, to help the person discontinue previous anti-social behavior – and to achieve that end we need to take whatever steps are necessary, even if they are not popular with the public. When officials become the enemies of justice, we all lose – the guilty as well as the innocent and their loved ones. Fairness in our judicial system must not become merely legal fiction taught to students in grade school. If this were to happen, anarchy would result. Justice is a full course meal, not merely an appetizer giving partial satisfaction. When everyone is treated justly, no one’s rights are violated. And that is what this country and its laws have been all about since the days of our Founding Fathers. That logic must not elude us.
         With all this urgency for “get tough – throw away the key,” is there a chance for a change of direction? Can there be a wide perspective of recognition of the problem and a nationwide effort before the damage is irretrievably done? With the various vested interests in get-tough policies riding comfortable in the saddle and the difficulty of showing the dangers of getting tough on a cause and effect short-term basis, a change of direction seems an exceedingly difficult task. Truly, we must concentrate on the long-term effect. How will the offender act upon release from confinement? What will his or her frame of mind be – better or worse? Could he or she be so badly affected they’ll never, ever, be quite the same? We need to raise the alarms now. Other issues are secondary. Without creating a change from current direction other issues won’t matter. While the judicial system wrestles with the traditional get-tough issues, they are beginning to show dangerous signs of wear and are even experiencing revolt – and not just a minor variety either. And that’s as it should be. Advocates from the get-tough camp will quote studies that the cost of new prisons is more than offset by the savings from the crimes that are prevented. We should do what we can to prove that statement wrong. While the pursuit of leniency and fairness for criminals does not bring with it much public support, that doesn’t mean it’s less worthwhile. In fact, it’s high time to teach them that such things are more worthwhile. “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” –Gandhi
         This is an area where some astute political action or advocacy just might help change things. Of course, politicians at the national, state, and local levels always plead lack of money – “budget shortfalls,” or whatever the current buzzwords happen to be. But the money is always available for certain favorite “pork barrel” projects. So, clearly, it is not as much a question of funds as priorities.

         The judicial bureaucracy of our Founding Fathers was a trailblazer in the latter part of the 18th century, a road-builder in the 19th and much of the 20th, but today it can be more closely compared to a trucking company and we are the items that get warehoused or shoved aside with no say whatsoever. Once a bureaucracy loses its sense of mission it becomes more evil than good. Bureaucracies may be a necessary evil, but they have a characteristic life cycle that seems to guarantee that eras of creativity and innovation are inevitably followed by periods of stagnation and stupidity. With the proper amount of encouragement, our current institutional myopia we are suffering from can cycle back to a more enlightened direction. There has never been a greater time to act – or a more necessary time. Misused human intelligence got us into this mess; with the advantage of hindsight it can also get us out!

         One theory behind the printing of this booklet was specifically to enlighten and show the authorities involved, along with the general public, that some people, who have an extra degree of sensitivity to injustices and unfairnesses, do connive and plan to get “their turn” in sometimes very easy, personally satisfying, and even on occasion, legal revengeful ways when wronged. When they do, it can be very costly, in both financial and human terms, for the public. In many cases it is also embarrassing for officials when the public finds out why it happens and how easily it could have been prevented with just a little more care, consideration, and sensitivity on the part of authorities. In one case I know law enforcement purposely kept it out of the media’s hands because they were very embarrassed by their screw up.
         Too often, authorities are at a loss to explain what brought the lashing out to the surface in the first place, and are then surprised when they are told what caused it. It’s hard to believe they can do some of these things without expecting some repercussions. It’s as if they actually expect us to just accept them as normal. The current crop of political officials, judicial personnel, and those tough-minded people seem to be the only ones who are totally blind to the fact that retribution is quite likely to occur in some instances. In fact, in a way, revenge is much like the weather – it inevitably affects our lives whether we like it or not. Truly, politicians and the general public are short-sighted in endorsing these current policies. They are a far more costly alternative than is necessary. Obviously, they should be thoroughly reconsidered. A realistic analysis of all the costs involved – including those of revenge – would likely show that the attractions of such harsh treatments or other abuses are more apparent than real. This has to be factored into the loop and considered before any more actions are taken. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and that’s the truth!
         It’s also hard to understand how they can consider themselves proud Americans when they allow things like this to happen. Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” applies forcefully in various areas of our lives, even beyond the realm of the typical physicist in the laboratory – and sometimes, the reaction has exceeded the action. Like a dog eventually bites back if he’s kicked too many times, in a similar analogy, guilty culprits should not continue their misbehavior and not expect to get bitten eventually. What goes around, comes around. They put it out; you throw it on back. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Two wrongs may not make a right, but it can sure make some people feel better. Non-violent revenge sure helps clean out the cobwebs – it considerably lowers the anger level, it levels the playing field, it puts us all on a more even keel. Seemingly powerless people are not so powerless any more. And I speak from personal experience on this. Revenge lets you sneak in the back door when the welcome mat is not out on justice’s front porch. We all need to confront those who profess injustice and I’ll proclaim that until the day I die.
         Anyone who’s had or has a powerful organization or group looming over his or her lives needs to find their own way to a clearing of sorts, where they’re not crowded by their shadow. Evening the score is just such an opportunity to accomplish that clearing.
         For some people, it takes several incidents of unfairnesses and/or abuses to happen to them before they have the need to lash out. They tend to collect one injustice after another, often giving subtle indications to their perpetrators to cease or else, before they’re fed up enough to settle it in “their own way.” Others may vent off a little steam at a time after each incident, rather than to let it build up to a full boil. The range of variation is infinite.
         When these things happen, the perpetrators of the abuses and/or unfairness must be held accountable and accept responsibility (and criticism) for the behavior they bring to the surface of some of their victims, who would not have otherwise acted out in such a manner. Although they’re not totally responsible for causing various kinds of lashing out behavior, they do in fact have to be ready to accept their fair share of the responsibility though. Our abusers should have to answer to the citizenry for the backlash of their misdeeds and we can see to it that they are informed on. Everyone needs to be helped to understand that some of the methods and actions officials use to reach a final outcome are not the fairest, wisest, or obviously most economical solution to a case. Sometimes they are a crime in themselves. It’s high time they’re made to understand that. And don’t forget our “friends” in Washington D.C. and/or Sacramento. When various abuses happen to us, the locals doing the dirty deed(s) have accomplices in these far-away locations pulling their strings. Make sure they share the blame too. Pull some strings of your own.
         If the judicial system is to be credible when it speaks to the world about crime, it first must be crime free in its own organization. They must unequivocally acknowledge and respect our rights and fairness before they can ever hope to, or should ever expect it from us.
         Many of us feel that a professional who is charged with the responsibilities that go along with their position in the judicial system should be held more accountable than an average citizen to act fairly. They should even more so know better what they shouldn’t do. These views have strong criminal support – also at a cost.
         Even though abusing authorities are sometimes guilty of hideous actions, some continue to add to the problem. Indifference and ignorance are the chief causes and promoters of this kind of pollution and ignorance has never brought anyone to a better place. Part of the answer lies in becoming concerned about it. Logic now dictates we must start spending less time concerning ourselves about the symptoms of what the disease of abuse causes and more on a cure to prevent them from happening in the first place.
         The public must be made aware that preventative measures need to be initiated to stop the costly deeds those victims among us sometimes engage in. If we understand the nature of these kinds of people, then perhaps methods can be developed that will deal with these situations in beneficial ways. The preventative actions I speak of that are needed, clearly, must not be comprised of further abuse by a judicial-system person. That will only make matters worse, and probably contribute to more severe lashing out. (I can verify this with my own personal examples on more than one occasion.) On the contrary, the abusive authorities must stand up and accept responsibility for the vengeful lashing out actions they have brought about in their communities. That’s what we ought to demand of them and no more running away from it. They need to cease their unfair actions and treat others with the fairnesses we have come to expect by growing up in the United States of America, where our Constitution proclaims fairness and equality for all, as we have been taught since grade school. (“…all men are created equal,…” –Declaration of Independence.) The judicial system has a responsibility to deal out justice fairly. I know I was taught that as early as grade school, and I expect that, and I will never let anybody treat me in an unfair way ever again in any way! I don’t care who they are or how much power they have over me. I will not be a double-standard victim!
         If you’re outraged by an instance of lashing out by someone treated inappropriately – jump on the bandwagon and help correct its original cause. Chastise the real culprits. Get on their asses! Get it at the source. If you don’t want these things to happen, make sure you don’t sponsor the abusers by way of an approval of their malignant tactics. Don’t figure you can treat just the effect afterwards. The benefits of this approach are becoming more obvious every day. It certainly deserves some serious consideration. Let us become watchdogs and monitor the progress. Let us notify courts and law enforcement we’re onto their deviousness and we have goals that we won’t take it any longer, no matter what!That is our message. A new day has dawned and we’re no longer in the dark about our options. We won’t be sitting back all passive and such any longer. If recalcitrant and ignorant folks with power are standing squarely in the way of our getting the fairness we need in order to be composed, considerate, and compassionate ex-offenders we’ll boot them out of the way – a good swift kick in the you know where.
         The author goes by the premise that if we, as an oppressed group, don’t speak out to raise the consciousness of others and make them aware of our plight, the costly vengeful actions will continue by those already engaged in them, and the public or the abusing authorities will not know why. They will keep doing to us whatever the market will bear. Let’s let them know we are the market and we won’t bear in any more. Unfortunately, the opinions we hold are often looked on as a matter of indifference by society at large. There is often much apathy, indifference, and lack of sensitivity by the public towards whether people like us – defendants/criminals – are treated fairly. Too many have little concern for those of us jammed in like sardines in overcrowded noisy conditions. When others don’t care about these kinds of things, it only adds to the problem. Some of us often wonder why we should treat them fairly. Some feel that if we’re treated like scum, then we’ll treat them like scum when our turn comes. It is literally proving to be costly in human as well as financial terms for “the system.”
         If one wants the mule’s attention, one must first hit him between the eyes with the board. That is a goal this treatise surely accomplishes. It hits the abusers with the facts how they must become more attuned to the kinds of damage, in its various forms, that their insensitive attitudes can contribute to; it shows them the results their foolishness may have. If they reject our challenge to adjust their attitudes and instead continue on as before, knowing full well the possible repercussions, they best not hold someone else responsible if some of these actions transpire, because of what they did. If they choose to play by less than the rules of the road, then they dare not have a right to complain when we respond in a like fashion. They need to understand how short-sighted their decisions and actions often are. More emphasis needs to be placed on the person’s long-term behavior after his or her punishment is over. More caution needs to be shown so that a person not otherwise “dangerous” – or just merely a nuisance – is not actually made so. If they want to be treated fairly, they must first treat others (us) fairly. Only then is everyone benefited.
         Why aren’t people concerned? The reasons are easy to find. People are not worried about defendants/inmates, and until now there hasn’t been a sense of urgency about it either. Responding in the July 6th, 1991 edition of the Los Angeles Times on page A28 about 3 medicated prisoner deaths in non-air conditioned cells during a heat wave at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, John Irwin, Professor of Sociology at San Francisco State University and an expert on prisons, said that he, “doubts that the inmates’ deaths will spark public outrage. I don’t think the public has much sympathy for convicts. I don’t think there’s going to be much reaction at all. I think that’s a horror that’s true.” Truly it is a horror. And if the public is not outraged by needless deaths, they surely won’t blink at various needless abuses we have thrust upon us every day. I bet they wouldn’t be so unsympathetic if they knew their cars were getting vandalized because of those abuses. Maybe then there would be a public outrage to do us right then.
         We need to change their unsympathetic thinking. We need to let them know that deciding against fairness aggravates the problem – for them. We need to let them know that to let this slide by without action would be to treat our whole society the way a smoker treats his or her life; irrationally. That too many people don’t agree with this advisory is just another example of the “dance of the dinosaurs” that inevitably takes place whenever new ideas threaten the established order.
         Like any new technology, new thinking threatens to change the world, and we humans don’t like to change the way we do things. Overcoming the status quo is the largest obstacle we face. Just look at the controversy over using computers to “colorize” old black and white movies. Even though people against this process can easily turn the color control down on their TVs to see these old classics in all their original black and white glory, they instead want to deny the rest of us the opportunity to choose enjoying them in color. Once the status quo gets its insidious hooks in, old habits are slow to change.

         It is amazing, and worse than that appalling, how people with the power to inflict the kinds of damage we discuss here tend to rationalize and justify their actions. They often don’t pass the common-sense test. When they want to pronounce a rather severe punishment they are often heard saying it is, “in the interest of justice” in order to “protect society” because the person is a “danger to society.” That word, danger, is often thrown around much too easily, and for the most minuscule of reasons. More likely than not, being placed in a hostile environment and being treated, harassed, and agitated in not the most appropriate of ways can lend itself towards making some people more “dangerous” than they were before, or in the least, ticked off enough to either search for ways to even the score or merely subconsciously act in ways which causes aggravation in the hearts of others. Needless to say, few reemerge the same as they were. How many of us are, in fact, dangerous now after we’re out, but weren’t before sentencing when they said we were? Come on, I see a few raised hands out there. Don’t be shy, I’m among ya; I don’t deny it. Professional private and court appointed psychiatrists even told them I’d be safer if they don’t screw me over again. If these tactics were something that had to be approved of by the Food & Drug Administration they would be banned as ineffective and dangerous. With a little urging maybe we can get them to take their blinders off and see what their misplaced words are really doing to society.
         It’s sort of ironic in that I have been severely criticized for the reasons I have used to justify my behavior when I proceeded to set right a wrong, yet see the reasons judicial people come up with to justify the things they do.
         Putting it in mathematical terms, the “Fairness Formula” is defined as: Dangerousness (likelihood of lashing out) of the defendant is inversely proportional to the fairness of the treatment he or she receives. More fairness = less lashing out. Less fairness = more lashing out. It couldn’t be simpler! A first-grader could figure it out – how about a college-graduated prosecutor or judge? Just make sure they factor our “Danger Calculation” into the loop.
         This is based on objectifying us, treating us as objects. Objectification of us means seeing us as less than human. It is hurtful; it limits humanity of all people trying to have decent relationships; it makes the world less safe for your loved ones and friends, because people who see us as objects instead of as people are less hesitant to do us harm.
         If you put a dog in a cage for a period of time and antagonize him and then let him out and say “I hope you learned your lesson” the first thing he’s going to do is bite you on your heel. It seems their minds get fixed on the ultimate goal; “protecting society” – yet they neglect the side effects on down the line. Does anybody sit their asses down to think these things through? – I’m afraid not! Don’t they realize the damage they’re doing for no other reason than they think it’s the correct thing to do? – It seems not!
         Protecting society is important, but of equal concern should be how will the person act upon release from confinement. Average people must understand that harsh punishments and/or any other kinds of abuse can magnify the problem by having the opposite of the hoped for effect for some people. A short-sided view of eliminating criminal activity only while the person is in custody should take a back seat to the broader and wiser view of a positive decision that will aid the person in really wanting to be law abiding for the rest of his or her life. What is in the best interest of the defendant must be equated to what is in the best interest of society, for only with including both equally is justice really served.
         We need far-sighted politicians and enthusiastic protagonists who understand the political machinery and these concepts. I hope this work will make everyone aware of the dilemma around us and what questions must be asked in order to arrive at decisions better than we now have. We don’t need any more short-term oriented culprits causing society any more problems. These people only delay the day of reckoning to a later time. They cannot prevent the drastic long-term effects on society.
         Since we do not understand the effects of these complex actions and how they interrelate upon all of us, it is high time we insist a second look be taken at them. They cannot keep doing these things without expecting some kinds of repercussions. If they do, they are not living in the real world. Activists are concerned and are campaigning to improve various aspects of our lives. However, they sometimes overlook a critical element in our fight. While they are fighting the fight, the pressures of the general “concerned” public and politicians are subverting their efforts from unseen directions. Attacking the issues at this point should be one of the most important aspects to work on first. Without a change in the status quo, the “good” efforts of judicial personnel are futile.
         The lessons of the past must provide insights for the future. We need to understand our past in order to understand our present, and eventually; our future. Sometimes a person’s mind is stretched by a new idea and never goes back to its old dimensions. We need to stretch these ideas. After all, as a man thinks in his heart, so is he – change the way a person thinks and you change the person; change the thinking of enough people and you change the society; change the thinking of enough societies and you change the world. This is our ultimate goal. An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Let’s show them it’s our time! People tend to be the most cooperative when their pocketbook is affected. So if common sense doesn’t work, go for the jugular – hit ’em in their pocketbook where it hurts. It may make a crisis for the judicial system, but then things usually get done in a crisis. Actually hitting them in their pocketbooks may be the only option abused victims have. Arguments about fairness, justice, compassion, and/or common decency toward us simply won’t fly with most law-makers or the general public.
         If you don’t believe banding together to economically devour a community works just look what Arizona’s Martin Luther King Jr’s. holiday fiasco cost them. First, the governor eliminated the holiday for the state and then voters agreed. According to a USA Today article, “Boycotting is popular resort for activists” by Cathy Lynn Grossman in the October 11, 1994 issue on page 4D, the Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau said that within 5 years they lost between 160 and 170 events worth $100 to $250 million – including the 1993 Super Bowl, National Basketball Association All-Star Game, and World Figure Skating Association championship. Needless to say, voters gave in to the financial pressure and approved a King holiday in November 1992. After their “change of heart,” they were awarded the opportunity to host the 1996 Superbowl. According to the article, other states also lost millions due to boycotts for various other reasons. In nearly every one the boycotts got the desired results and then some. See what the power of money has to pressure certain behavior? Get their pocketbook and you get their attention; get their attention and you have a voice, it’s that simple. It works every time; eventually. Remember Rule # 1: Monetary incentives is the key. If you do an action that from an economic standpoint they can’t defend against, you’ve got ’em by the balls – right where you want them.
         In fact, police use the economic pressure of financial costs to get their way too. In October 1993 in an effort to settle a pay contract dispute they started towing in people’s cars for minor infractions they normally don’t, like having no license or registration. The news media said they hope mad people will bitch enough to force officials to give them a good contract so they’ll quit and resume their normal emphasis on real crimes. Actually, they’re neglecting the essentially innocent pawns they’re victimizing in this tactic. All these towing victims have to pay $40.00 to get their cars back just because the police wanted to play hardball at the cost of others caught in the middle. I know what I’d do if I was a pawn in that case – but that part of the story is for later on. Right now we’re on economic sanctions.
         If our country can impose “economic sanctions” on other countries because we want to get them to change some of their behavior to something we want, then we (you and I) can impose “economic sanctions” on those who we want to change some of their behavior.
         This author has seen evidence of a case where San Fernando Superior Court Judge Robert D. Fratianne and Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Leland B. (Lee) Harris knew some form of repercussions would surely happen after a thorough psychological profile was done on a defendant. Even though they had numerous options available to prevent it, as recommended by every psychiatrist who examined him, they chose the worst possible alternative while using that time honored phrase that always seems to pop up; “in the interest of justice” because “we need to protect society” from this defendant that is “a danger to society.” In this case, as in far too many (especially those reported in the media), the judge and DA had more concern for their image to the public, which wants harsh treatment for offenders (which means to use the state prison option), rather than in a true interest for all concerned. At last word that defendant was lashing out in vengeful and costly ways that no one could stop, because they were not illegal. Another one of those infamous situations where media invades and degrades the judicial process? Yup. All together now – read my lips; “It’s cheaper to address prevention now, rather than wait to see how abused people will choose to ‘cure’ their anger later on.” Got it? Good! If they make an example out of you mainly because of public pressure and so the abuser will look good, especially at election time, make sure it backfires – make an example back! Publicity-seeking prosecutors need to be given bad publicity back.
         When avengers adopt legal methods of evening up a score this is sort of the ultimate revenge because these people don’t even have to hide their activities or worry they could get in trouble. It’s like a slap in the face to our abusers, sort of the, “he who laughs last, laughs best” kind of situation because they can’t do anything to stop it until the avenger alone decides it’s time to end it. Three cheers for legal avengers, we need more of you. You can really gum up the machinery. You’d surely earn our monkey-wrench logo if we sold patches or pins to wear on your clothing.
         In the judicial world, all roads lead toward the same goal; to stop a law breaker from breaking the law. The destination might be the same for every judicially-oriented person, but the vehicles and routes for getting there are about as diverse and numerous as there are people to met them out. And that is where the problem lies. Some of the examples of the inequalities and injustices involved in sentencing people are appalling. Sometimes these punishments appear to be chosen capriciously and irrationally while involving a considerable amount of inherent bias. From one judge, court district, or state, a person can receive one punishment, while in another courtroom that same person can receive something quite different – often based on the judge’s own personal biases; that’s justice U.S.A. folks! It’s hard to believe that in this day and age, in this country, what, in effect, amounts to state and government sanctioned unfairness could really be possible. In these days of amazing scientific progress it’s astonishing and surprising how backward and archaic the judicial system can be.
         Another miscarriage of sentencing justice is when a defendant gets a sentence that is overly harsh to be as a deterrent to someone else’s future crimes. This often happens to well-publicized cases, but our judicial system is not designed to make us suffer more to prevent a total stranger’s future crime. We’re not responsible for that person’s behavior and should not suffer for what he may do later. This is especially not to be tolerated. Also not to be tolerated is to be made a scapegoat for every similar crime done in an area – even for crimes others are known to have done. They need to hear a howl like they wouldn’t believe.

         Bias – try this on for size. I was sitting in Judge Fratianne’s court one day while awaiting my attorney’s late arrival. A young black man, fully expecting a 1-year county-jail sentence, confidently approached the bench when his name was called. He had stabbed another man in a bar and it was fully known to the court and DA on duty that day that the stabbing victim had instigated the altercation while in a belligerent drunken stupor. Judge Fratianne asked the first-time offender why he didn’t just walk away from the threatening man and when he spoke up to say he couldn’t just walk off from a fight Judge Fratianne became immediately infuriated and gave him 10 years in state prison. That was the same sentence he would have gotten if he had been the one who instigated a fight and stabbed someone. Now if that isn’t being revengeful, what is? If that isn’t responding irrationally at a moment of anger and without thinking, what is? Here the guy was being openly truthful – something we should compliment – to the court and giving his honest opinion to a question asked of him. Did Judge Fratianne not know that the culture of the community where this man was from dictates you don’t show your weakness in front of others by merely walking away? Did he even care? Or was he just looking to stick it to a black person? Whatever it was, he clearly responded irrationally to the defendant’s honest verbal response rather than assessing the true nature of the crime in its proper context. In overhearing talk earlier between Fratianne and the DA it was clear they felt a year was proper for someone that did not set out to pick a fight. Sure, the defendant shouldn’t have stabbed him, but likewise, neither should he have merely walked away. In the least I would have firmly grabbed the irritant by his shirt and spoken some loud, stern, and angry words to him to see if that gets the message across. Fratianne couldn’t understand how I overreacted in anger when I lashed back in an illegal way at someone I was mad at, yet he was so nearsighted, he couldn’t see he was committing nearly the same offense, just in a different way, but equally damaging and abusive. Do you suppose he needs a reality check? Hmmm.
         One wonders if a white, clean cut, non-tattooed, first-time offending college student from Beverly Hills would get 10 years if he did the same thing. One wonders if Judge Fratianne really expects the defendant to just accept it without a whimper or a bang. One wonders if he cares when he lets his momentary anger dictate a sentence he hands out. One wonders if he would stick it to a defendant who had a momentary lack of better judgment where someone was emotionally hurt knowing full well he hurt someone real bad (for 9 extra unnecessary years) because of a momentary lack of better judgment on his part. I can’t help but think this is not the message we want to be sending to people who already have a criminal-acting nature about themselves.
         Pardon my digressing to this story for a moment folks but that is a classic case of how irrational so-called professionals who are suppose to know better can be. How can they honestly blame us when we respond to an injustice in a less than appropriate way when they can do likewise upon merely hearing true honest feelings they even inquired about? To this day, over 11 years later, I still feel disgust at what that black defendant had to put up with on what amounted to a momentary whim. I hope he did something about it. I hope future ones do too. Now let’s get back to where we were.

         Sometimes the system is just as biased, unfair, and disproportionate in how it selects its victims. A more serious offender can get a more lenient punishment than a less serious offender can get. Some of us are at a greater disadvantage than others because we are less experienced in dealing with “the system.” This lack of experience has at times resulted in some being victimized by their own defense attorneys. This is more likely to happen with a public defender, but it also happens with attorneys we pay for out of our own pockets. (For an account of an experience I had with privately retained attorney J. Patrick Maginnis, one of the attorneys handling Antoine Miller in the Reginald Denny beating case, and what horrors come out of that, see my book; Fedbuster: The Southern California Wildfires of ’93 available for $20.00 from the address at the beginning of this book or check it out for free on the Web at: http://tlarsen2.tripod.com/fedbuster.html.) Incompetence, apathy, or spite on their part is not unheard of. Nor is it unheard of to have a defense attorney talk a defendant into taking a less-favorable plea bargain because he has another client he wants the district attorney to go along with accepting an extraordinary good plea bargain. As you can see, we have to set our sights on abusers of all stripes, whether they be “law” enforcement, prosecutors, judges, probation/parole officers, or even our own good ol’ improperly-acting defense attorneys; scoundrels that they can be sometimes.
         No matter how well meaning or dedicated judges may be, many are largely unaware of the particular dynamics involved and what the consequences of their decisions may lead to, when they hand out the kinds of punishments they sometimes do. For some, decisions like this merely reflect a lack of understanding about the emotional distress of the victims left in its wake. For others, they fully understand but just don’t care. Then these same people wonder why we didn’t care that we later chose to violate someone in return.

         On the subject of inequalities and protecting of society is concerned – how would you feel if you were given a parole date and then a few years later when you’re all excited and about ready to go home, have it canceled by newly-appointed conservative parole panel members and/or Supreme Court Justices? You never misbehaved in those intervening years either. All of a sudden, authorities of conservative values “feel” you’re still “dangerous” or a “potential harm to the public interest” and overrule the opposite views of the former more liberal authorities that previously had power over you. Somehow they feel that some more time behind bars will take away your last bit of “dangerousness.” If they really think they are protecting society with a decision like this, they are not living in the real world, in a vacuum so to speak. Don’t they understand how their decisions may end up causing severe damage to the morale of a prisoner and then make him or her a worse threat later on? It’s hard to comprehend the things they think up and justify to themselves as proper. If they’re that naive, I’ve got a nice piece of swamp land I’d like to sell them.

         Another ridiculous story dealing with that “dangerous” issue is notable. A boyish looking 21-year-old non-violent first time offender was interviewed by Dr. Blake Skrdla M.D., a prominent court-appointed psychiatrist from Beverly Hills. He expressed remorse, understood what he had done, and had future plans and goals set for a bright productive and law-abiding future. The “respected” doctor advised the court that the offender was a “danger to society” and recommended a period of confinement. Ninety days later Dr. Skrdla interviewed the same person and heard much the same dialogue; remorse, goals, plans – the whole works. This time the offender had “improved” but is still a “danger,” was the doctor’s conclusion. Nearly two and a half years later doctor and offender meet again. By now, the offender has become quite bitter about his state-prison experiences and was suffering emotionally from the frequent sexual solicitation and harassment other inmates verbally accosted him with. He wisely chose not to disclose those feelings and presented a virtual carbon copy of his previous dialogue to the interviewer. This time, the doctor’s psycho babble phrasing miraculously classified him “not a danger to society.” The only difference about the offender now was that he’s done some time. Obviously the naive “professional” doctor believing in the “healing powers of the confinement” dealt out by the people he works for, feels the offender must be better now. After all, he was locked up and that will make offenders more safe, they reason. He, and other like-minded foolish kinds of people just think they can have it both ways; that they can do these things and really think they can make society safer by doing them. Who dreams up this nonsense anyway? If he’s that short-sighted in his reasoning I wish I had some more swamp land to sell. I could make a fortune. Think this yea-ho would go for a piece of ocean front property in Arizona too? Hmmm.

         Anyone with that much power to influence judges’ decisions should have a more realistic handle of the dynamics involved. Without that, they are in a dangerous position, with far too much power (especially when their word is taken as gospel), and are literally more of a threat to society than many of the offenders they classify as such. The worse case scenario situation happens when a determination of danger is done after only a brief interview by a “shrink” who doesn’t even know the person but then relies heavily on written material that is not totally accurate. Sometimes – especially when you’re extra nervous knowing this “god” holds your life in his hands – these scoundrels will take what you say and twist your words into a meaning that you didn’t intend, and you are made to look bad. Who do we blame for this abuse here though? The psychiatrist, or the judicial system? If courts lead shrinks to believe they have the power of God even though they don’t have the wisdom of Solomon, I say jack up the judicial system.
         Then when it’s time to recommend a course of treatment to the court do you think bias tendencies stay on the sidelines? Of course not, they’re brought right up to the forefront to meddle in with every other concoction the shrink wants to dream up. From my own personal experience of being interviewed by numerous psychs, each and every one recommended the particular kind of program he himself conducts. Those who do private sessions said I would be best treated on a private basis, those who conduct group sessions with strangers present said I would do best by being treated in a group setting, those who did sessions with two or more family members always present said I would do best in a treatment program where my parents participated, and last but not least, when I was interviewed by a prison psychiatrist he, and another time she, said prison would be the best for me. Can they all be right or can they all be biased? And when they are biased why should I have had to pay for it out of my pocket? I want my money back!!!
         If there are times judges will adopt bad psych reports and/or probation reports to justify giving the defendant an adverse sentence which they wanted to do anyway, there are also times good psych reports and/or probation reports are disregarded so the judge can dish out an adverse sentence which he wanted to do anyway. I’ve been a victim of this tactic with both psych reports and probation reports, but worse than anything is that psych reports I paid for were used or not used at the whim of some judge to do with as he saw fit to suit his needs. As far as I’m concerned, if they’re tossing them aside what was written just because they don’t want to use them, then let them pay the cost to obtain them. I want my money back!
         Quickly we begin to see that getting mixed up in this machinery of normal court proceedings is like putting a kid in the ring with a heavy weight prize fighter. We just don’t have a chance and because of that we are seeing more and more of us tipping the scales in our favor by gumming up that machinery in our own ways that average society does not like in the least, which, of course, is exactly what we like. And that’s the way it should be when justice and fairness don’t walk hand in hand. Hopefully this work will broaden these people’s horizons and open their eyes to these dynamics before more of us suffer needless and sometimes unrepairable damage and more importantly, before some of us are triggered off into serious violent behavior as some I have spoken to almost did. That is a reality none of us can afford to pretend it does not exist.
         Why is there always such a need to label even minor offenders as “dangerous.” Once a sheriff told a news reporter that some minor offenders, that had previously been released without bail to relieve county jail overcrowding, were “dangerous” because they failed to show up for their court appearance. If they were so “dangerous to society” why were they let out without posting bail? Truly the term “danger” gets thrown around much too easily. We better get them to get their blinders off to see what their recommendations are really doing to society before any more damage is done. It’s late, but not too late.
         Those who have been emotionally harmed by “professionals” employed in some capacity of the mental health field may find it worthwhile to contact: National Association of Psychiatric Survivors (formerly called the South Dakota Mental Health Advocacy Project – National Alliance of Mental Patients), P.O. Box 618, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101-0618. This grassroots organization was born out of a need to develop a unified national voice to deal with these kinds of psychiatric-caused problems. A free brochure can be requested and help is available to both current and ex-patients. Another organization I have heard about is: Stop Abuse by Counselors, Box 68292, Seattle, Washington 98168.

         Educating the community enhances public awareness. Clearly it must continue so the general public will understand that emphasis of harsh treatment should be replaced with an emphasis of fairness and concern for all parties in the broader scheme of things. This will be in the interest of true justice. They – and in particular, those victims’ rights groups – must be helped to realize that when appropriate methods are not used to reach a final outcome to a case, costly retaliation sometimes occurs. Harsh sentences do not always go hand in hand with protection of the people. This point needs to be made very clear in no uncertain terms. Those who handle defendants should have the wisdom to understand that we are people too, with feelings deserving of respect that should not be brushed over so lightly.
         Some of us simply are unable to handle and accept aggravations that others may take in stride. Even those who do not have as low a tolerance level to injustices as others are finding they have had enough and won’t accept it any longer – and that’s the way it should be. We should not learn to live with victimization. Unfortunately, it is not realized how some kinds of abuse can lead to a more emotionally damaged person with residual consequences that may linger for years, even when the victim doesn’t actively act out in retaliation. Call it Abused Defendant Stress Syndrome, Betrayed Defendant Stress Syndrome, or maybe Post Judicial Abuse Stress Syndrome, it is similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the lingering affliction some Vietnam Veterans experienced after they returned home. Care should always be taken so that a person, who was not otherwise “dangerous” before, is not actually made dangerous by the actions perpetrated against him or her. When judicial personnel are so quick to classify a person as dangerous they better not try to slither away from their responsibility of accepting blame for the repercussions when the tactic backfires on them. (I know of several instances where people purposely did something dangerous, out of spite, they normally wouldn’t have done when the judicial system made such an emphasis out of them being dangerous when they, in fact, weren’t at all. They figure if they are getting stuck with the label, they might as well really get their money’s worth and become it.) It must not be forgotten that our harsh sentences will be over with someday. Do you really want us out among you in this frame of mind? Isn’t it better to eliminate a problem, rather than add to one? Just because a person is a defendant in a case, or even an incarcerated inmate, that is no reason to stop being concerned with his or her emotional well being. The last thing a court should do is exasperate a problem, especially when they know they may be. The subject of rehabilitation should not be considered an extinct species, as the criminal-justice system in California currently views it, when judgments are handed down, even to re-offenders. An incentive for fairness for all concerned can coexist in harmony when rehabilitative dispositions are reached, rather than purely punitive ones.
         Many judicially-abused people operate under the premise that if authorities who represent society’s laws expect us as defendants to treat the judicial system and society fairly after our punishment is over, then we must first be treated fairly. This includes not only receiving a sentence in line with the conduct that brought them to the attention of the judicial system in the first place, but also to abstain from the petty aggravations and harassments some are unnecessarily forced to put up with whether they are confined or not.
         Included with these harassments are the overcrowded noisy inhumane conditions many confined people have to tolerate. Living with crude, rude, and loud inmates is sometimes the worst punishment of all. Smaller aggravations that may lead to a desire to even the score could be such things as, having a staff member or supervising officer within society (a probation or parole officer for instance) do something that has an adverse effect upon you, and makes you mad, because it is not right or fair. It could have been done accidentally by a person incompetent to some degree or it could have been purposefully and spitefully done – yes some actually take pleasure in screwing over people and even enjoy using their well-trained bodies in physical confrontations when the opportunity arises. Either way it ticked you off and you want to do likewise to them.
         Another source of retaliation can also be provoked by the quantity of some food items and their nature or quality when served along with an absence of normal condiments. (One taste of a meal served on Thanksgiving or Christmas will show you they are capable of serving decent food. They need to be showed how it is more economical in the long run to serve them all that way.) The littlest things average people take for granted often mean more than usual to confined people. Some may say these things don’t happen. They say nobody is that vindictive about “little” things. Well, none of these things can happen – until they do. Pretending retaliation doesn’t exist, or that we’ll accept whatever they do to us, leads to the biggest pitfalls of all. The only options abused victims have are either to wag their tails between their legs and crawl off in silent defeat or revenge it. Increasingly, more and more victims are refusing to wag their tails. Increasingly more and more victims are banding together and discovering the combined power of revenge. And when you’re protected by the power of revenge, you don’t need the power of Smith & Wesson. Do you get my bang up kind of humor? Pop, Pop, Pop!
         Just like electricity, revenge is a force to deal with – to show respect for; for it too quietly and silently lays in wait ready to zap out at anyone neglecting its power. There is no longer any serious debate on whether repercussions have begun. The argument is now over what the magnitude of the effects will be and how fast it all will happen. Those two factors will determine the seriousness of the situation. Keep in mind that when searching for the cause of great wrongs, look for the little ones first. For years our democracy has been correcting its most glaring abuses – but subtle ones remain.
         If you don’t believe there are a lot of angry maliciously-proned people out there wanting to aggravate someone back in non-violent ways, even if the recipient of their lashing back is not responsible for the original abuse against them, just remember the Pepsi Cola syringe scare of June 1993 which was all phony after the original idea of tainting was put in their minds by media reports. Copy-cats wanting to cause some hassle to others made fake reports of syringes they found in cans. And if they wouldn’t have fallen apart during questioning by law enforcement and wouldn’t have admitted it was fake they wouldn’t have been charged with making a fake report. Let this be a lesson to you. Never admit anything until you’ve exhausted all possible deals in court, not only with your attorney, but also by way of your own research in a legal library. After all, as we will show, not all attorneys are working in your best interest – even ones you pay for. More harassments pertaining to confined people are included in Chapter 3.

         Many average citizens may be falsely inclined to believe that if the conditions and/or punishments are bad enough, people would make sure they don’t do anything to get into a similar situation again. While that is often true for many, it isn’t always. On some it has the opposite effect. Their desire to even the score, or at least to be spiteful in some way (even a legal way), is more important than anything else, often being a necessary step in their recovery process.
         Some compare the desire or need to seek some kind of revenge is like an itch that needs to be scratched eventually. – One way or the other they can go only so long before they have to just reach up and scratch the heck out of it, even more intensely if you let it go and tried to just ignore it.
         Another example is how penicillin will make most people better but some are allergic to it and suffer a severe reaction. Similarly, some people are allergic to unnecessary judicial aggravations and do not respond as hoped.
         Being a prisoner of bad memories, these people can forget the injustice and heal emotionally, only after they’ve settled the score – that is, scratched the itch. I’m currently accomplishing this goal by openly preaching my beliefs, both verbally and in writing by the distribution of this book, which I’m sure authorities don’t like – and in fact I hope they don’t like it! I’m sure they would like to try to screw me for it, but at the same time I’m also sure they’ve learned their lesson from before and know I’m the wrong person to victimize again. I truly hope readers will develop a similar philosophy of not giving in and accepting abuse of any kind. Revenge is an emotional release, and when more victims adopt this philosophy less and less of us will be subjected to further abuse.
         Some pinheads say we should just forget judicial injustices, but my response is why should we? Why should we accept any improprieties no matter how long ago they were committed against us or how small they were? After all, judicial personnel don’t forget our past misdeeds, even those in the ancient past. They get suffocated in the thick residue of our past and we get stuck with a higher sentence on a new crime just because of a past crime. (And besides, if we were cost money we shouldn’t have been, when bank interest we would have gotten if our money would have remained in the bank where it belonged is figured in, the amount we lose actually doubles every 14 years or so. For example, if you weren’t cost $1,000.00, you’d have $2,000.00 in just over 14 years with the accumulated interest you would have earned on an account paying 5%. Your anger shouldn’t subside with time – it should grow at the same rate banks are paying to their customers on their savings accounts. That’s what mine does.)
         As recently as 1989 a friend of mine was still being held back from doing prison time at a better place because the structures there were made out of wood and he had set a small closet fire in 1959 when he was 9-years-old. This then turned into another one of those famous “misplaced priorities” kinds of situations they’re prone to having. They were more concerned he may set a fire just because he accidentally started one 30 years earlier that they neglected to worry that he would purposely revenge their decision to keep him at a worse place even though they knewhe did such things on purpose when wronged. As it turned out they did in fact worry about the wrong thing and it did in fact cost them a truck load of razor-blade sliced up laundry. Actually maybe more than one truck load. How many trucks do you suppose would be needed to haul $27,000.00 worth of inmates’ clothing? Is penny wise, pound foolish an appropriate statement here or what? Cut, cut, cut cut, cut – r i p! (Pause for laughter..................)
         And speaking about misplaced priorities and worrying about the wrong thing; after the government raided the compound in Waco, Texas they were asked what was so important that they had to go in that particular day after they had waited for 53 days. Their response was that it was costing the American public too much money. Well, we saw how much it did cost them didn’t we? They should have been more concerned they don’t un-hinge some people.
         There’s a lot of stupid things they do when they misplace priorities. When a commemorative stamp honoring blues guitarist Robert Johnson was put out they air brushed out a cigarette hanging from his lips for fear of giving the wrong message, yet they will commemorate the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima with a stamp depicting a mushroom cloud. Shouldn’t commemorating the murder of innocent children also send a wrong message? Hmmm.
         Some abuse victims who could otherwise be hot tempered and possibly assaultive have found that by doing some of the non-violent methods discussed in our following chapters have then been able to lower their boiling points to a safe (non-violent) level, below the point they would ordinarily lose control.
         For many, their costly lashing out is done legally in ways that can neither be stopped, until they’re ready to stop, nor get them in trouble. Clearly the public must influence the judicial system to take the steps necessary to show more caution when dealing with some defendants. Especially in these days of tight economic times it simply makes sense to be cautious when lashing-out incidents can be costly. An ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. President Clinton referenced the truth of this saying in his September 1993 national speech on health care and it’s high time the rest of society recognized its words of wisdom and adjusts their behavior accordingly. We must develop ways to do justice to the individual with as much vigor as everyone wants to do to society.
         Some people that are inclined to seek retribution when wronged take personal pleasure in acting in the opposite way people of authority hope they will. Whereas if they’d have been treated fairly in the first place they would have been more inclined to act in the hoped for way.
         Some of us want to figuratively throw a monkey wrench or two into the wheels of the judicial system in order to make them squeak. We want to make authorities as mad as we have been made mad. An eye for an eye so to speak. I can assure you from personal experience they do get mad, even when they know it was their own misbehavior that caused it. I’m not concerned at all about what judicial people think of my actions though, after all they are the cause of the problem. Despite what some may think, this is not a rebellion against authority figures per se – rather it is more correctly a rebellion against those who abuse their authority. Revengers are an inconvenience; not a true threat. For our judicial system to allow the kinds of actions they do regularly is unconscionable – that is the true threat.
         Typical law abiding people need to understand how people that have already broken the law are more easily inclined to once again break a law, for vengeful reasons when wronged, than a typical non-lawbreaker would be inclined to do when wronged. After all, law breaking is already a part of our personality.
         It is hoped our “friends” of the judicial system will become enlightened enough to see the problems they sometimes cause when they act in careless ways, not the most conductive towards fairness or rehabilitation. When this level of enlightenment is present, we will all be working together to oil those squeaky wheels. A true win-win situation. Ex-President Bush has said we need a kinder and gentler nation. In a similar analogy we need a kinder and gentler judicial system in more situations. This comprises the innate good sense of the American public. Unfortunately, good sense often is not innate; it needs to be born through education, and that’s where we all come in.

***

         There is a wide diversity of viewpoints about how best to deal with unfairnesses. This booklet presents some people’s ideas, views, opinions, and beliefs. As you will see, those expressed herein just about always contradict traditional judicial views in this matter. Listed below are stories of abuse and their resulting retaliation the author has compiled while held prisoner longer than proper within the Los Angeles County Jail, California Department of Corrections, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. They range from people who lashed out after as minor an action as getting punished for spitting on the sidewalk, to being fined for possession of an open container of beer in public, to receiving an undeserved traffic ticket, all the way up to other vengeance after more serious unfairnesses happened such as; being jailed or fined excessively in relation to the crime they did or even having had something confiscated that shouldn’t have been. The range of abuses in-between these extremes are infinite as are the methods of revenge. Many are reported here. Our concept here is that these are revolutionary ideas, rather than merely evolutionary ideas.
         Weaving your way through the many choices available to abuse victims isn’t always easy. Ultimately though, non-violent methods on the block seen destined to weave their way more and more into mainstream society as perpetrators contrive their abusive tactics in non-caring ways. For those unable or unwilling to accept this misbehavior any longer this journey (non-violent venting) is worth taking even if the road winds a bit along the way.
         Some of those interviewed confidentially relayed horrendous tales of retaliation after some improper deeds were perpetrated against them. This manual does not report on any pay back actions that involve physically harming or assaulting any persons. While accepting the fact that some people are unable to just forget an injustice done to them, this author, while neither encouraging nor discouraging breaking laws in general, does firmly dissuade anyone from lashing out in any physical or violent ways towards anyone as happened in Van Nuys. While some may say all revengeful people are off the wall, others say they were pushed. I’ll let you decide who the real guilty culprits are.

         On March 9, 1988 the Van Nuys Municipal Court experienced a lashing out incident by a man said to have been “beaten down by the bureaucracy.” He took a hostage, shot a marshal, and was eventually killed. This is an awful and extreme case of revenge, but the point needs to be emphasized, that vengeance is a costly problem in its various forms when the judicial system leaves victims in its wake. Newspaper articles reporting this incident at the time noted how authorities now plan to beef up security to prevent similar incidents in the future. Instead of putting a bandage on the injury to prevent a dangerous “infection” from invading their courtrooms, why can’t they see the wisdom of preventing the original injury from happening in the first place? It’s sometimes hard to believe the things they sit around and think up. These people are 3 bubbles out of plumb. Aren’t they concerned about the side effects later down the road? One thinks not. Wake up people – closing the barn door after the horse gets out won’t get it any longer.
         Since this time, we’ve seen other examples of violent outbreaks by individuals likewise beaten down or otherwise screwed by “the system.” More than once in the last few years the media has reported shooting rampages conducted by disgruntled postal employees and people who were badly victimized in civil court proceedings. After every one we always seem to hear that same question asked by those reporting the incident, “why did it happen?” But for those of us used to “the system” and her abhorrent ways we find that, given the huge number of victims seemingly left by the wayside in an uncaring way to fend for themselves, the proper question to ask should really be, “why doesn’t it happen more often?” So far, the criminal courts haven’t been affected as badly as the civil courts, but, given the anger level of victims out there it is only a matter of time. And the time may be here. Look what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Topeka Kansas on August 5th 1993.
         The August 21st, 1992 edition of ABC-TV’s 20/20 addressed the issue of increasing courtroom violence across the country as pertains to domestic civil cases. (Video tapes and transcripts of past episodes are available for this program and others I’ll be referring to later on. Addresses and phone numbers are always given at the ends of the programs for those interested in obtaining them. Just have program name, air date, and subject matter so you get the right one.) Those interviewed acknowledged it will continue until we get more fairness in the system. Other narrower-minded people say just increasing security in courthouses will cure it. I wish I had some more swamp land to sell to those characters. They’d buy anything. Any dimwit knows someone over the edge will find a way to get his or her turn at the perpetrators whether it is in the courthouse or outside in other parts of the nearby community. And these are suppose to be educated people? Scares you doesn’t it? Ya fix the problem – don’t just cover it up and pretend it doesn’t exist. Get it?
         It’s noteworthy that some smarter professionals aren’t even surprised when violent outbreaks happen. When 3 doctors got shot at the Los Angeles County U.S.C. Medical Center in February 1993 by a man who admits to being screwed over and over, hospital workers and even one of the wounded doctors said they expected it to happen because they knew how people are getting screwed over. The tragic thing is they neglected to correct the circumstances that led to their own destiny. Must the judicial system follow the same pathway? Can they be so stupid to ignore they are sitting on a powder keg primed and ready to blow? And who will be to blame when it does? Let’s make sure the shooter isn’t the only one to get all the blame. In fact, in many cases like this, he or she only deserves maybe 10% of the total blame. Make sure the 90% gets to where it belongs.

         Many people who have been irritated enough by “the system” find it quite satisfying to cost them financially, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate them in some way. Some of us, in increasing numbers, are of the opinion that in these times of budget deficits and tight spending, it is likely that if there were to transpire a widespread wrath of very costly revenge (hitting them in their pocketbooks) and/or revenge designed to inconvenience a multitude of people involved with the judicial system, by a sizable number of people who have been abused and/or treated unfairly, some changes inevitably would quickly come about. Just remember, politics and money are truly familiar bedfellows.
         By the way, have you ever broken down the individual parts of the word “politics” into their separate meanings? “Poli” meaning many, and “tics” like the bloodsucking insect. So then we have poli and ticsmany bloodsuckers. Cool! That works for me.
         One person I spoke to said he particularly likes to embarrass law enforcement ever since the day the Secret Service embarrassed him by telling his neighbors, friends, and acquaintances embarrassing things about his past behavior while they were asking questions about him in relation to a possible recent crime that in no way was related to that particular past embarrassing behavior. He told them in no uncertain terms he would do all he could to embarrass them in return forever until they apologized and made it up. To this day, 18 years after the event, he has kept that promise; going for the MIF, Maximum Irritation Factor.
         Budgetary issues are often on the minds of authorities, even after a tragedy like the Van Nuys courthouse event. Newspaper accounts reported how the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will still unlikely equip all courthouse entrances with x-ray machines or metal detectors because of the financial cost involved. Today only the multi-story court complex buildings are protected with such security devices. The smaller courtrooms are still exposed to any wrath someone wishes to unleash. (That was written in 1992, I’m not so sure it’s the case here in 1998.)
         It is quite possible, and even probable, that if they were hit with enough vengeful financial tragedies they would then be forced to step back and take a good honest hard look at how to prevent them from continuing in the future. Hopefully they would have the wisdom and caution to prevent the original injuries from happening in the first place, and not just bandage over ones that already happened. Or worse yet, bandage over an injury that is still causing injury to its victims. If you have a nail in your shoe do you just put ointment and a bandage on it, or do you take the nail out first?

         Some victims are lashing out with no thought of helping to make it better for the rest of us. They are only interested in satisfying their immediate anger, and that’s the only point for it. The recipients of the vengeance often have no idea why, so therefore they never have a reason to review their manner of behavior against us and see if it could be handled in a more appropriate way.
         Recently, the judicial system is apparently seeing some people not only lashing out to even the score and satisfy themselves, but they are also actually trying to enlighten (and embarrass) their perpetrators as to why it happened, so they can consider more appropriate alternate methods in the future. After they are through, or even while still in the process of their retribution, they will inform the offending party or parties of the judicial system and often their superiors or supervisors what they did (anonymously of course) and what brought it about, along with how they should deal with situations like this in the future. Any reader/victim less skilled at phrasing statements of criticism should feel free to adopt any wording they read here (no part of this book is copyrighted) to chastise any misbehaving judicial culprits and get their message across. You can structure your writings word for word, if desired, on any sentence or paragraph you wish to use to smoothly and effectively convey your thoughts. Just get your message out before it turns violent. We don’t need any of that.
         Some realize that the offending person(s) may have apathy and not even care. Or worse yet, they would like to back off, but because of many people’s desire to have them get tougher, they will do what the public wants, whether it is the most beneficial for society as a whole in the long run or not. Sometimes they bend over so far backwards to please the get-tough crowd that they do more harm than good. They are more concerned with their political standing in the eyes of voters. One would think they would be more cautious in such matters. To guard against this, some abused people will take it to a the highest court in the land – the court of public opinion. Make ’em look bad there and you get action. Your side is affirmed. They will get them to get down on the abusing authorities. They’ll anonymously write their statements to various media, civic interest groups, and private citizens’ groups that want harsher punishments with the hope that perhaps when more average citizens know what these judicial abuses can and do lead to they will see the wisdom in acting in more fair and considerate ways.

***

         Others need to become sensitive to the tragedy of these issues. Clearly this needs to be a group effort at educating and motivating the community to enhance their awareness. This can be an unpleasant experience to some, but the trade off comes when you see progress being made through your efforts. Average citizens that are outraged at our lashing out revenge, should understand that their demands for these kinds of punishments are nothing more than a kind of revenge and lashing out, in their own way, against us – they just call it by a nicer word; retribution. We all have some of the same attitudes – just different tactics (theirs is sanctioned by the state and government and ours aren’t), and different words for it. Those who preach for harsher punishments and have apathy for the crowded, inhumane, and harassing conditions need to realize the lack of wisdom in this kind of thinking, and the consequences it leads to. If these things are not brought into check, they will only get worse. There is no other way around it, the only way to guard against these kinds of actions is to cease the kinds of activities that cause them – it’s that simple! No one else will speak for us. Retribution begets retribution!
         If you don’t like the idea about revenge violating innocent people, look what we spent to get Manuel Noriega in 1989; millions of dollars and many innocent people dead when we invaded Panama to get him. Where were those upright anti-revenge seeking people? I don’t hear them bitching that the U.S. went overboard in their zealousness to get him. Let’s admit it, the U.S. used severe methods to revenge Noriega’s misdeeds and there’s no way around admitting that. And there’s no way denying innocent people got violated – dead in fact. At least I favor non-violent revenge. It’s too bad the U.S. Government can’t be as upright.
         Of course, that wasn’t the first time innocent people in the vicinity of the targeted guilty culprit were injured or killed in the name of revenge. Remember when we bombed Libya in 1986 to avenge Muammar Qaddafi who was suspected of being the mastermind of terrorist bombings against U.S. citizens. Remember all the support most of us all had with the reaction? Remember hearing about the deaths of innocent children? Remember the response being merely, “Oh well, that’s too bad. Blame Qaddafi not us”?
         And going farther back in time, what about bombing Japan twice with the most powerful destructive nuclear devices ever made and killing millions of innocent civilians and children in retaliation for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? I haven’t heard many Americans bitching at our deliberate targeting of completely innocent victims. Have you?
         Then on top of that, in June 1993 President Clinton bombed Bagdad in retaliation (revenge) for a plot by Iraq to kill ex-President Bush during his visit to Kuwait months earlier. In the process though, 8 innocent people were killed with rockets that went off course. Do you remember how much public support there was for a decision to bomb them even though the risk to innocent lives was very well known? Why weren’t the anti-revenge people bellering out there? I guess even violent revenge is acceptable when the perpetrator is bad enough. Let’s carry that philosophy down the scale a little and say that non-violent revenge – which is the only kind this book covers – should also be acceptable when a less bad perpetrator has been bad enough. If the loss of innocent people’s lives is an acceptable side effect of revenge on a very bad perpetrator, then shouldn’t non-violent revenge with innocent people violated in a minor or inconvenient way be acceptable for a less bad perpetrator? Come on folks, revenge is revenge! Don’t you dare accept innocent deaths as a by-product of a violent revenge method and then not accept the inconvenience or minor irritation of innocent people as a by-product of a non-violent revenge method. And don’t you dare consider those soldiers who commit the actual death and destruction (that ends up spilling over and victimizing innocent children and other citizens) in the name of the government as heroes worthy of the highest praise, while you consider us revengers – who seek always a non-violent method of correcting a less serious wrong but without the benefit of government backing – as worthy of the worst condemnation.
         What, they’re not the same thing you say? Well, in a way that’s true. Our actions are accomplished at some cost to innocent people’s property and/or reputation. Theirs was accomplished at any cost – even the ultimate one! Shame on them. But, on the other hand, both were designed to curtail the actions of a bully or group of bullies who believed they were doing the right thing or didn’t care if they were, but were doing it anyway. Make no mistake, I wasn’t against the Persian Gulf War. Bullies, in whatever form they’re found, must be stopped – period! I firmly believe it should be done without physically injuring anyone – even guilty ones. And even guilty ones that deserve it. That’s the way I deal with my abusers. Obviously, many supporters of Desert Storm do not see that limit to be a prime concern when they want to keep improper actions in check. I guess it all boils down to which abuses you’ll allow to happen and which ones you’ll put your foot down on. My vote is cast on the side of stomping out all forms – no matter how small or minor some seem to think they are. A wrong is a wrong – period! That’s how I live my life; how about you?
         Now while we’re in the general neighborhood of the Persian Gulf War, let’s talk a bit about how blame gets passed around from one to another. Just like Saddam Hussein blamed us for starting the aggression on Iraq, even though we all know it was him who started it when he invaded Kuwait; we monkeywrenchers will likely be blamed for deeds of evening the score even though we know it was those who did misdeeds against us who started it. If strong support for violent retribution of Iraq’s misdeeds can be gathered, as it was, then in a similar manner, strong support for milder forms of non-violent retribution should be gathered for milder forms of abuse. Scuds can be stopped whether they are actually real live flaming rockets or just improperly applied tactics fired in our direction. If they fire at us, we gotta’ fire back! We just need to launch a campaign at our adversaries as strongly as the U.S. did to its adversary, the ol’ Saddam.
         No one seems to call President Bush a murderer or a vandal even though he ordered the bombing to begin which resulted in the destruction of innocent people’s property and the deaths of innocent children and other civilians. (That’s merely chalked up and justified as, “that’s all part of war.”) Everyone appears to accept that Saddam Hussein caused it and that President Bush was just reacting to his actions. They don’t say, “death and destruction wouldn’t have happened if President Bush would have stayed out,” which obviously it wouldn’t have happened if President Bush did choose to not respond. Instead they say, “death and destruction wouldn’t have happened if Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have done his misdeeds.” The blame is placed on the original perpetrator of misdeeds, and rightly so, not on the one who responds. In like fashion, blame must be placed on the original perpetrators of misdeeds against us when we respond in an enthusiastic way, even if innocent people are aggravated. To be effective, innocent aggravated people must be made aware of who caused the reaction just as the government makes sure everyone knows Saddam Hussein’s actions are the cause.
         And if the majority of Americans can support the decision to continue the campaign until Saddam complies with certain terms and conditions, one of which includes making amends for his wrongs, then those same supporters should not be so irate if an innocent person’s property only is damaged and that it will continue until the guilty one(s) make amends for their wrongs committed. Especially when the real perpetrator – the Saddam like character – was advised what he or she was doing was wrong, and there could be serious consequences for that action if continued, and that there is an eventual time to pay the piper. Make no mistake, I am not putting a minor abusive deed in the same category with Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. Likewise, our reactions are nowhere as aggressive or damaging to the perpetrator or innocent alike. I am only campaigning how reactions by one party, handled in certain ways, can be considerably acceptable against an abuser. This seems true if the reactions are within the same severity range as the original actions.
         You know, when you think through this whole situation there is a major irony here. If we speak out to those who act improperly to advise them that they should correct the situation under penalty of retribution we probably will be accused of making a threat. Yet when President Bush threatened Saddam Hussein to do certain actions or face possible further retribution which, as in the case of all war actions, includes unavoidable injuries and deaths to innocent victims and children, he was held in the highest regard by a majority of Americans and enjoyed the strongest support of his entire Presidency. Why is it worthy of condemnation and possibly prosecution for the little guy – the individual – to put his foot down non-violently on one form of aggression, but worthy of the highest praise for the biggest guy to put his foot down in a fiercer violence-prone manner on another form of aggression? Do we Americans have our priorities in the right places? Hmmm.
         Whether it’s President Bush telling the world what Saddam has to do or the little guy telling a local cop or judge what his expected conduct had better be, setting right a wrong is setting right a wrong. Why do so many people snivel when the little guy sets the record straight? The moral is, the power of revenge – or retribution as the case may be – is a power to reckon with. It is a power we all have; big and little alike. Used in a diplomatic way as President Bush did, considerable support can be gained. Used in a little guy kind of way, as you and I do, considerable sniveling from far too many people is gained. Be advised and use your power judiciously. Either way though, the power to change attitudes is always there.
         While we’re on the subject of toughness as being their kind of revenge against us let’s speak a bit about the death penalty. Advocates of this method of murder have said that if it saves one life as a deterrent it is worth it. I wonder how long it will be until some violent revenger kidnaps someone before an execution and lets the media know that the execution better not happen or else. I wonder if they would carry out the execution knowing it will result in the death of an innocent kidnap victim. Truly victimization happens only because many others allow it to transpire.
         I remember one time hearing the family of a murder victim say on a TV interview how they were mad that the convict on death row had confessed his sins and become a Christian because he now won’t be punished by God after death. It wasn’t enough for them that the guy was getting executed, they wanted his soul in hell too.
         We must all become activists, marketing the issues and solutions and educating locally, nationally, and internationally. Our most valuable asset in this daunting task is an informed and vocal constituency of activists. Sometimes working at odds with the system is necessary. There are many things we all can do to help keep us moving in the right direction. These approaches work, and the results are satisfying. When people see there are consequences for abuses, victories can be won. If you want to get involved in this crusade, contribute stories, or just learn more about the problem, drop me a line at the address at the beginning of this book. All correspondence will be held in the strictest confidence away from the prying eyes of snoops who have no business or right to know the identity of any activists in our movement. If I use your story of abuse along with the way you got satisfaction back I’ll give you full credit, unless you wish to use an alternate name. This work was written to build awareness of the judicial-abuse problem and to share with others the strategies and solutions of judicial-abuse activists. So join us, you will be making the world a fairer place.

         Because there is strength in numbers – along with an opportunity for sharing talents, information, and solutions – it may be beneficial to organize and form a non-profit group network or coalition in order to provide a supportive environment for judicially-abused survivors. Besides having a place to kick around ideas on how to help our cause and respond to abuses as they happen, various techniques could be discussed as to how best to enlighten and educate an uninformed public. This task group could encourage others to be imaginative in considering new directions and disciplines. Participants should be challenged to expand their horizons and to garner as many stimulating ideas as possible for future enterprises in this area. Using the catchy acronym; VOCAL (Victims Of Court or other judicial system Abuse of Laws & powers), branches could be formed in various communities as our united strength grows and spreads out. With a strong advocacy of people who agree with our goals and principles, our forum will be adequately represented to help those of us who have been persecuted. What once was a field of ideas populated by a few lonely thinkers defending complete but idiosyncratic theories is now becoming a field characterized by healthy individuals sensitive to all forms of abuse; judicial or otherwise. What once was merely individuals unable to accomplish anything, now we are united together and defining a common game plan. Together we can make a great impact by encouraging these people and letting them know they are not a lone wolf howling in the wilderness – that something can be done. By keeping our cause out in public circles we could put pressure on and activate more people to step out and help. Let’s hear ideas from readers. And I don’t mean just you guys out there. There has to be female avengers around. We need your input too. If anyone would like to sponsor a VOCAL chapter in a given area please feel free to write and I will get you in touch with other interested advocates in your area so you can begin communicating together and making a difference. Before groups like this start discussing any useful tactics to accomplish their goals though, they make sure they announce out loud to everyone present a thorough disclaimer stating how everything said is for amusement purposes only etc. etc. and not meant to be put into practical use, much like how I began this book. This way, if there are any uninvited law-enforcement snoops in the audience trying to collect information from those “conspiring” to accomplish some deed, they will have their asses covered. This way their discussions can’t be interpreted as being actual plans to commit a crime. Stating one’s position up front will cover them from any set up or entrapment method snoops may have in mind.
         Like any good organization, VOCAL should state its official position in writing and adopt a Constitution of some kind. A final approved document will hopefully incorporate the wisdom of many people, but to get the ball rolling, let me put out some of the ideas those of us in prison come up with as a beginning format and we can all take if from there.

CONSTITUTION

Victims Of Court or other judicial system Abuse of Laws & powers (VOCAL) is an organization founded in response to abusive practices of any nature which are perpetrated against any person or persons by anybody involved in any way with the judicial system, whether officially or unofficially. Its membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to the plight of judicial-abuse victims and survivors. We recognize the dignity and personal worth of every individual – whether ex-con or not. VOCAL is strongly opposed to judicial personnel inflicting any degree of unnecessary and/or unfair action(s) or aggravation(s) – be they physical, mental, emotional, psychological, or financial in nature – upon any person (either accidentally or with spiteful purpose) which is currently in a position of being unable to resist its injuring effects. Included in our list of prohibited misdeeds are: lies of any nature; being cheated or cost money; having personal property messed with or taken without permission; having emphasis placed on the wrong thing; being overly picky on one item while another item is unfairly neglected; being threatened; getting harassed, belittled, or taunted; being treated differently (double-standard like) than another person is when going through the judicial system for a similar matter; and anything that leads to a condition of distress or uneasiness that is unwarranted. VOCAL’s goal is to end the long-standing abuse and persecution of powerless people who come into contact with the judicial system by:

(1)

empowering people to get off their duff and make sure the judicial system does not get away with whatever improprieties they might level upon us;

(2)

building a broad support network for such victims of abuse and persecution where together we can gain more judicial experience and develop a realistic strategy how to counteract their devastating tactics;

(3)

educating the public on the malevolent nature of our country’s judicial system in far too many instances;

(4)

cooperating with other competitor groups in the judicial-abuse activism movement and exchanging information that has been found to be useful in the accomplishment of our common goals;

(5)

putting abusers on alert that we are on to their immoral and iniquitous ways and that we have resolved to not let any more misdeeds go by unpunished;

(6)

supporting various methods of non-violent retribution against guilty culprits who have first been advised of their misbehavior and strongly encouraged to modify their conduct to within proper boundaries;

(7)

empowering people that they do not have to take abusive tactics of any nature, any longer – from anybody;

(8)

promoting a general environment of widespread fairness where we can heal the emotional wounds left by our status as a persecuted minority.

         One of the prison chapters of VOCAL I was involved with some time ago come up with these goals, or “Statement of our Principles” as they termed it: Achievement/Aggressiveness: We set aggressive goals, and drive ourselves to achieve them. We recognize that this is a unique time, when our actions can change the way abusers conduct themselves. It’s an adventure and we’re in it together.
         To be most effective, we must devise timetables for our abuse-reduction goals, both for the short term (achievable in a year or less) and the intermediate term (1 to 10 years). Much can be accomplished by setting up practical objectives and agendas. This not only paves the way for real progress, but also keeps us from becoming discouraged when we are not victorious immediately or, worse, suffer a setback. To maximize success, however, we must thoroughly know the subject, be prepared to expend effort, always tell the truth right to the point, offer them solutions, and attack the system not people. Tackling short-term goals can lead to immediate relief or a sense of achievement. Think of how much we could accomplish if every victim and every victim’s support VOCAL like group were to resolve to undertake at least one simple project every year to help lessen the infliction of further abuse. Judicial abuse is a monumental problem that will not disappear overnight. We are convinced it can be solved, but only if a concerted effort is made by enough persons over a sufficiently long time. While it might take a number of years to conquer the widespread forms of abuse everybody seems to be committing, immediate gains are possible if we form smaller coalitions to concentrate on specific problems. If we win enough small battles we can eventually win the war – or at least give them a hell of enough reason to think twice about their actions from now on.
         Each chapter of significant size could form separate focus groups. The goal of these sub-groups would be to have open and frank discussions on the various important issues each one addresses. Possible individual focus groups could be titled: 1) Education and community outreach, 2) Membership, 3) Activism and current/emergency issues, 4) Linkage with other revenge (anti-abuse) groups, 5) Research of new abusive laws and practices as they affect our people.
         Early on in my job as a Judicial Abuse Consultant an Activist, I became aware of one thing; Revengers come in two varieties. Some push the envelope from within, squeezing out every last fairness they’ve got coming by only using non-violent means. Their insights can turn judicial misconduct into a settled debt without any physical injury to anyone. But then there are revengers who perch outside the envelope and stir up trouble. Impatient with the pace of progress, and bureaucratic red tape, they stretch into more violent tendencies, often mixing and matching ideas from various revengers dedicated to a common goal. Early on I developed the OATH and today require it as a condition of membership in VOCAL. Why what self-respecting organization would be worth its muster without an Oath? Or even a theme song? Our “fight” song as I call it. It was written by members of the Corcoran chapter of VOCAL when I was imprisoned there in 1990. It’s sung to the tune of the Christian Hymn “There Is Power in the Blood.” Sorry no musical scale accompanies it folks. Just drag out your ol’ Hymnal and you’ll find it right in there. You do have a Hymnal don’t you? Hmmm. Both the OATH and theme song are reproduced at the end of this book where they can be devoted to their own separate pages.
         As you can see, all this is still in the developmental stage. But even with that, always be sure to abide by the “VOCAL Way.” Never resort to violence. There’s an anti-judicial abuse movement in the air folks, and it’s growing! Jump on the bandwagon and join us. It’s going to be quite a ride. We may get a few arrows in the back for our efforts, but I guess you’ve got to expect that whenever you accept the role of “pioneer.”
         “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” –Margaret Mead

         Another offshoot of VOCAL formed while I was in prison called R2 (pronounced “are squared,”) – meaning revenge multiplied by itself and therefore very much more intense – is full-throttle revenge. Its motto is: “Channel your anger: Think; focus; study; stalk; strike; & move!”. Putting this one in mathematical terms as we did earlier, we’ll define this “Danger Formula” as: Dangerousness of the revenger is inversely proportional to the square of the fairness of the treatment he or she receives. Half the fairness = four times the lashing out. Much more fairness is needed to counteract a revenge event than would normally be needed to. Maybe because the victim has been beaten down so much, it takes more than average fairness to sort of make up for all that has been dumped on him or her earlier in life. Maybe I should rename this danger calculation the “Inverse Square Law of Revenge.” Because this group branched into more deviant and borderline-violent forms of revenge I am suggesting that if anyone is asked to join they will decline the invitation. No matter how badly we’ve been dumped on, let’s try to leave our actions in the non-violent category and proceed from there. Stick closer to Newton’s third law of motion, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” You can’t get much fairer than that – and that’s what it’s really all about; fairness!
         As I was leaving prison in 1990 someone was forming SLAM (Stop Law enforcement Animals from Manipulating us any longer). I just love fancy acronyms. Sounds like a winner to me, just keep your group non-violent folks. They even had a motto: “Identify the abuse, seek help, take action!” That works for me. I don’t mind competition from competing groups. In fact, I hope many more flourish. We need all the help we can in getting the word out. For anyone, this book is not copyrighted. Feel free to incorporate any of its language in literature you want to distribute. Just give proper credit as to its source.
         Another group I heard about is HALT (Help Abolish Legal Tyranny) on the October 5th, 1993 episode of The Maury Povich Show dealing with improperly acting attorneys. Unfortunately, they gave no details about the group or whom to contact for information.
         John Stossel had a show titled “The Trouble with Lawyers” on August 7, 1997. Anyone wishing to get videocassette or transcript are urged to call (800) CALL-ABC.
         For those who have been seriously abused in some way and wish to have the incident vigorously investigated, another organization I’ve heard about is already in place that they can contact: Justice Education Center, Hartford, CT 06106.
         As far as getting all the help we can get, let me mention that there are some sympathetic people to our cause that, even though they haven’t been a victim personally, could still lend a hand to those of us sufferers. When you hear of some outright unspeakable abuse perpetrated against someone unlikely to lash back sympathizers can act out with the proper documentation to the wicked ones involved. Surely some people are more likely to be victimized by perpetrators who “know” they’ll just accept it as par for the course. They need to know these unassertive laid-back people have a supportive stance. Take for instance an older and ill grandmother jailed for about $34 in unpaid state taxes as reported on Inside Edition on February 20th, 1991 and sentenced to 14 months. To add to the injury, she was released when she won her appeal and traveled to California to be with a sick relative. Later, a higher court upheld the conviction and when she didn’t surrender in time she was arrested in California. The strain causes her heart problems and when she was in the hospital she was literally chained to the bed – all for $34. Speak of overreacting, that Attorney General in the sentencing state fully supported those actions when he was interviewed. He needed to be made aware this would not be tolerated. Some sympathizer should have rammed that $34 down their throats and run up a bill in the $34,000,000.00 range for those overreacting overzealous abusers.
         Maybe we collectively can make a difference. Sometimes I stop and ponder, will this work appear in the historical records when the scholars of an age still to come recoil in contemplation of the cruel ways people were treated. If power leads men to arrogance, maybe this work will help bring them back in line; maybe these words will be the candle that lights the fire to ultimately bring about the fairness we deserve; maybe Big Brother will pause, check itself for fleas, and scratch before the next mad scramble to screw someone over. Maybe it will set new standards for itself. Something better do it before it’s too late, if it isn’t already! Corrective measures this late in the game may prove to be harsh medicine to some special-interest groups, but there’s no easy solution to satisfying those kinds of people. We’ve got to expect that and move around it. Is this too strong a stand? I don’t think so. After all – look at the alternatives and consider the consequences. All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.
         Only when our judicial people start rethinking their practices – so that it reflects what the less politically powerful needs and not what the rich politically conservative wants – can we have a respectable judicial system. It’s time they roll up their sleeves and get on with the job.
         Ideally, the judicial system should act on its own accord before it becomes necessary for outside regulators to force changes in the system. What remains to be seen is how quickly and thoroughly they will respond to tragedies that have pointed out flaws in their system, and how astute they will be at making the tough calls that balance fairness, safety, and economy.
         To think that some of these things are happening in our United States of America is still totally unbelievable. To think that our court system is allowed to continue these tactics runs counter to everything I always believed in the Constitution and civil liberties in America. America has long forgotten her once firm belief of “justice for all.” Sometimes our government and our media might single one of us out merely because we stand for something they disagree with. Sometimes the government is looking desperately for a scapegoat on whom to blame and one of us merely gets stuck in the middle. Sometimes, for various reasons, we are stuck unable to bail out. Often, those of us in this predicament cannot fight an immense battle from a jail cell. Our government knows this and delights with it. The games they have been known to play on some unfortunate souls are ludicrous. And this is justice? This is the United States of America – that’s not the way it’s suppose to be! Let us make sure it won’t be. The ends don’t justify the means. Let us make sure they understand that! (To see one of the best examples ever of what being denied bail cost the government and society read my book; Fedbuster: The Southern California Wildfires of ’93.)
         While some are implementing programs that reduce their impact on the abused, and in return their impact on society in general, others are ignoring their social and ethical responsibilities. With revenge getting stiffer, and more frequent, and society’s costs rising, those judicial personnel that place a stronger emphasis on proper behavior will be the ones that prosper. As individuals, we must continue to push for judicial ethics and economic incentives. As activists, we must also become more efficient in our actions against abusiveness. There is nothing like a torrent of complaints to make people think twice about some of their actions. A strong grassroots campaign can influence even the most recalcitrant judicial personnel. When action is needed, members of activist groups like VOCAL can carefully plan out a strategy that will give us the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time.
         Despite what some may say, I don’t hold the judicial system per se, in contempt. They are a vital and venerable institution of our government. But many of the people in it are contemptible people. I think they do some of the things they do in their zeal for “brownie points” from those proponents of get-tough policies. They don’t care what it does to people’s lives and what reactions it may bring about. One of the things I find appalling is how good people get into the position of power and suddenly go so haywire. Sometimes these actions judicial personnel do are well publicized when they bring retribution to the surface. At other times, they only quietly leave victims in their wake. Let’s make sure we bring their iniquities to the public’s attention. Nothing seems to focus the minds of judicial officials like getting chewed out by scores of revenge victims.

         Establishing our point of view in unique ways is healthy, for us, and almost unavoidable nowadays if we are to have any chance at relief from these bloodsucking slimeballs. The ball’s in our court, and ours alone. It’s our turn. Take those bold and unorthodox steps. If you’re in the right and/or have been overly stepped on do as David Horowitz says, “Fight back, and don’t let anyone rip you off.” Don’t be a doormat; don’t allow yourself to be walked on any longer! Don’t let them victimize you any longer! Take no nonsense! Don’t let them make you feel like a dog with your tail between your legs forced to crawl off to a corner in silence. I felt like that at one court district until I got my turn. Since then my tail popped out and it stands straight up with pride every time I pass through that district. Ah revenge – how sweet it is! Sometimes nothing is as exciting! While some say, “no good deed goes unrewarded,” others say, “no good revenge goes unaffecting.” The perpetrator is affected in that he’s aggravated, the victim’s affected in that he’s happy. Is revenge the way to go or what? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander. I love it when a plan comes together!!! The only power they have over you is that which you let them have. Take your power back! Find their off button. Buck the system – the judicial system! Go against the grain. If they’re riding high in the saddle make sure they get a bucking bronco. Rock the status quo! Empower yourself! Don’t be passive and accommodating! Don’t be a causality of the judicial system. Be a nuisance, a thorn in their side, an irritant; not merely a finger tickling at their ribs. The squeaky wheel gets the grease – make sure they hear you beller out! Squeak, squeak! If they screw you when you are at the bottom of the barrel, squeak back from the top! If they rouse you – rouse ’em back harder! If they leave a big hole in your life dig one back for them to fall into. Bring it back full circle. It just plain feels right to even up a long-running score. Have that glint in your eye, just make sure you’re working on all cylinders. Clean out the cobwebs of the past. Swim against society’s views of you. Reach out, not just as a member of an organized anti-abuse activist group, but individually. Revenge is like manure, it doesn’t do any good unless you spread it around a little. Remember, abusive things only happen because we have been allowing them to happen to us. Don’t give them that option. That’s now gona’ end! Let them know the injustices they inflict will come back to haunt them. If they’re going more by aggravating than mitigating factors to sentence you make sure they get some aggravation in return. You call the shots – don’t let others call them for you! You can affect the way you are treated. If you don’t like it you don’t have to accept it. If it’s bad enough you can revenge it. That is your free will to choose. And if there are lots of complaints and retaliation, the perpetrator will probably improve his or her ways, willingly or unwillingly, by way of public criticism. So show them who’s the boss! Take a back seat to no one! Make them scrape the residue of their own misactions off of their own shoes. Make sure they know the meaning of the Fairness Doctrine, and make sure they know they’d better not even think of sidestepping it for even one second. Hold your head high. Don’t just ask for fairness – demand it! Remember the old song with the lyrics, “I fought the law and the law won”? If you’re finding yourself fighting the law and end up getting screwed over make sure the law doesn’t win. You can do something about it – you have the power; the power of revenge! Just be ready to show your muscle in case they don’t believe you. You can fight city hall. It is O.K. to march to the beat of a different drummer. Branch out – don’t be afraid to blaze new territory; take the path less taken. Use the way of their injustice against them. Be like one of those kids who refuses to color within the lines. If you color only within the lines you’ll get what life hands you. Are you satisfied with that? I say color anywhere there’s paper. (One wise-ass cop was bragging he has the law and the Constitution on his side. But that can’t stack up to the power of revenge. Another tried to hide under the blanket of “we’re the judicial system, we don’t treat people unfairly or victimize anyone; we’re here to help people.” Ya…right. We know what that character’s been drinking!) Plan thoroughly, be careful, have fun, and give ’em hell! But don’t get too carried away though. Remember, revenge is like a drug. Once it gets into your system you need more and more. Just don’t carry it too far. But also remember just as intensively that if we don’t do anything we are aiding and abetting their misbehavior. We have a right to live without the fear of intimidation and abuse from those powerful people higher up on the judicial totem pole. We have a right to respond if we’re provoked to the response level. Make sure you take your right! Build yourself a rudder and don’t let the sewage of the judicial system take you along with their flow. You be in control – buck the “system.” If something leaves a bad taste in your mouth, find something to neutralize it; a “sweetener.” Let them know they’ve got a tiger by the tail. Revenge is one of the tools we can use to protect ourselves. Be sure it’s in your tool box.
         Claim your right to set the record straight. To do so is to make whole, to empower you, and to instill purpose and meaning to your life. To set things right is to treat yourself with respect and compassion and to stop treating yourself the way you were treated by your abuser. Setting the record straight also means reclaiming rights denied you, or claiming rights you never knew you had – a healing of sorts. Healing is a gift – the gift of having gone through pain and suffering and emerging still touched by the suffering, but no longer bound by it. Claiming your right to set right a wrong and heal emotionally is the best gift you can give yourself! Take advantage of it before it is too late!
         There are very definite ways to take on the judicial system and win. It’s called revenge. But it can only be done by a team effort. We all have a natural power to even up a score. Unfortunately, too many of us are under-employing this great tool of justice. Abusive things only happen to us because we allow them to happen. It’s because of us that the swamp in which these people breed is allowed to continue in existence. If we banded together and avenged every judicial-system misconduct they would surely be on notice to mind their P’s and Q’s. I once heard an inmate in federal prison griping about what had happened to him then said you can’t beat the federal government. Beat is a relative term. You can sure aggravate them and that’s a moderate win in my book. Throw that monkey wrench people – throw that monkey wrench!

         Let’s close this chapter by saying that your decision on whether you support our philosophy depends, in part, on how you view the judicial system. Those of us who have been haphazardly raked through its coals obviously come away with serious doubts about its integrity and credibility. Whether you currently share liberal or conservative views on this subject, wisdom dictates you must have all the facts before you cast your final vote – a vote that can have long reaching consequences and effects.
         In deciding whether a particular course of action – such as a stiff punishment (or even some unnecessary aggravation) – is a good idea, we must not only weigh the risks of not proceeding, but also the risks of proceeding. Failure to consider these factors could leave us dangerously ignorant of vital aspects of the victim’s possible reactions and responses. Such ignorance is risky. Those with the power of the state or government must have enough wisdom to ask, “Are we – and the rest of society – better off if this action is taken?”
         Currently, the judicial-reform movement is focusing on one thing – get tough! I agree that such actions are needed in some cases. But if the judicial-reform movement is to succeed in preserving and encouraging proper responses, it must realize that there is more involved than just preserving the status quo. Care and caution are worth taking if for no other reason than the sake of something new. Neglecting it because “judicial economy” won’t allow the necessary time just won’t get it any more. Let them know it’s more economical in the long run (like after the guy gets out of prison a few years down the road) to take the proper time – and you can take that statement to the bank and cash it; that’s how good it is! Now, you know my feelings, opinions, and position – and mark my word, they are opinions; something our Constitution allows us to freely express. You know about available options. It’s your choice, and yours alone. The pendulum always swings back. Make sure you’re ready to grab it when it does. Just remember, if you become enmeshed in the heavy machinery of the criminal-justice system, make sure you’re never ground up in its gears. Don’t let them grind you up and spit you out without leaving a bad taste in their mouth. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. He who laughs last, laughs best! Face it folks – we’re here to stay! We have the ability and the power to make things right. Let’s do it!!! Monkeywrench onward to equality! Be careful and have fun!

One can resist an invasion of armies, but not an idea whose time has come.

–Victor Hugo

Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]







CHAPTER 1

 

Oh people, know that you have committed great sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you!

–Genghis Khan, Bukhara 1220

         If you’ve been knocked around once too many times a revenger lives within you. He sits and stews most days, biding his time, when he occasionally gets to stretch his limbs into yours and laugh the wild, crazy laugh of adrenaline as he finally gets to settle a score. You know him, although perhaps you’re wary of his power and like to consider yourself too mature and responsible for his regular company. But he cannot be ignored. He must be walked, and he must be fed. Otherwise, he’ll make you a wreak. The following pages are his. Non-violent ways to cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate others who has earned your heartfelt contempt. They’re vicarious opportunities for you to get to know him better. They’re a nudge, a not-too-subtle elbow in the ribs, to surrender to his adventurous wryings and live life at another level. Your revenger within is restless. Unleash him. Outdoors. NOW!
         We now get to the meat of the whole book – the incidents of revenge along with the abuses that caused them to happen. They range from those that are clearly illegal, on through borderline ones that may or may not be, then down to ones that are not illegal at all. Many of the incidents are only misdemeanors, even though they are capable of costing and/or inconveniencing judicial-system personnel greatly. Some are so near the borderline between legal and illegal that, due to the complexity of the laws as a whole, a layman could not tell if he or she has stepped over that magical line with any degree of certainty. Those who have the desire and/or need to even the score, but have resolved in their mind to not break the letter of the law, have the responsibility to research the law to see if their planned behavior constitutes a violation of any law. Compliance with any such law(s) is solely the reader’s responsibility.
         It is again emphasized, this booklet does not encourage breaking laws. That issue is left up to each person to decide. Our goal is to encourage abusive and unfair authorities to change their ways. Most will agree it is better to look for a law abiding course of action to resolve one’s impulses and inclinations than it is to resort to law-breaking behavior. Realistically though, we realize some are not able to.

         The best place to start our treatise is at the end of the judicial system where most typical people are likely to have an encounter. Have you ever received an undeserved traffic ticket? Although many people who pursue these kinds of tickets in court are often found not guilty, the way the system is set up, even if they win, they lose. It’s like winning the battle, only to lose the war. Because of the hassle involved, many people just pay the fine rather than take a day off work, which would result in a greater financial loss. Some people who decide on this less costly option don’t stop there. They want to make sure the system loses more than they make off the fine. If most people that are unfairly ticketed were to do something spitefully costly and let the perpetrators know they won’t get by with it, it’s likely officers would be more inclined to make sure their citations were properly and fairly issued. Here are just a few samples of officer-issued citations that ended up being devastatingly costly for the system.

         Jonathan was ticketed in his employer’s van for tailgating while making deliveries in an exclusively well-to-do area. The officer did not see the other party cut in front of Jonathan seconds before. They were only close for a moment until Jonathan had a chance to back off, but his explanation was to no avail. He is sure his long-hair biker appearance was a contributing factor in the officer’s decision to not believe him. That ticked him off and he was going to fight it. In the end he did win in court, but it cost him two days off work because two appearances in court were required; one just to set a trial date, and the other the day of trial when the officer never showed up. He probably didn’t care if Jonathan won, because he knew Jonathan would still lose in terms of the harassment he’d have to go through to “win.” Besides that, he had to drive over 60 miles each way to this exclusive community on the two occasions through heavy traffic.
         To make matters worse, the judge at the first court appearance wanted him to pay the bail/fine amount before he’d set a trial date. He was more than willing to extend the payment to a later date, but he refused to set a trial date until it was paid. That would have required a third trip if Jonathan didn’t pay it at this time. He felt they were just like bloodsuckers wanting to get all they could while inconveniencing us poor offenders so much we’d be apt to just give up and pay the fine to be done with it. Apparently they didn’t figure running into someone like Jonathan. He just said to himself, “they picked the wrong person to screw over. They made me mad, they shouldn’t have made me mad. Now they won’t like it now that I’m mad. I’ll get my turn. This will teach them who to mess with.” That is a philosophy many of us have toward improper tactics.
         In the 8 men’s rest rooms of the 8 story courthouse he took a $2.00 glass cutter, the size of a toothbrush, and etched into each mirror, “You shouldn’t have given me an unfair ticket.” They had to replace each mirror. Cost, who knows? On his second court appearance he vandalistically cut the telephone receiver coiled cords on each of the 3 elevator phones when no one was in them. He also brought a few tools to take apart the faucets in the rest rooms and flushed their smaller internal parts down the toilet, then threw the larger pieces in the trash. Anything to cost them was his plan and it was satisfying. For the next few months to vent off some lingering anger he would call the police or 911 from a pay phone whenever he happened to be making deliveries in this far-away community, in order to get them to respond by claiming a crime had taken place. Asked how he felt about it he said, “great, it surely made them mad, answering a phony call, just as it made me mad getting a phony ticket – and I hope they don’t like it.”

         Hugh had a slightly different twist on the “phony crime report” revenge. Knowing police record all calls, he called a supermarket he was near and told the manager he is the friend of a drunk friend who is on his way right then to that market to rob it. The manager then called the police and Hugh had the fun of watching as arriving police hid themselves where they could watch the entrance and lay-in-wait to try to catch the “robber” in the act. Hugh mentioned one more thing that would have been fun to do. When calling the manager one could give a random description of some kind of car common to the area that the “robber” will be driving. That way, if someone happens to enter the parking lot in a car matching that description one gets the added excitement of watching them getting jacked up. I think it would be funny. And you can waste the time of several cops too. If you don’t mind having your voice recorded you could even call police later and expose the joke. It’s up to you.

         Although this sort of lashing out was somewhat extreme, in relation to what was done to Jonathan, it is a case in point of a growing number of tactics the judicial system is finding they are having to deal with in some form or another. Although Jonathan is the kind of person that will not merely accept an injustice, he never pursued it further. Other people say it would have been better, even more satisfying, if he would have written to the offending officer, his supervisor, and judge anonymously what one unfair ticket and one judge’s actions brought about. Possibly even writing to people higher up in the political echelon of that community would bring some changes about. It would probably take a great deal of lashing out incidents before changes are made, but in the meantime it is considerably satisfying to those so inclined to let authorities know they didn’t get by with what they shouldn’t have done in the first place. To paraphrase the movie Field of Dreams when it was said, “if you build it they will come” my saying is, “if you revenge it they will change.”

         Rusty received an undeserved parking ticket from a meter maid who relied upon a defective meter. He promptly returned the favor by making 100 meters defective. He put super glue on pennies or nickels just before depositing them in parking meters. This caused them to jam up after a few minutes drying time. Repairing them required costly disassembly and Rusty felt good they didn’t make any profit on a ticket he shouldn’t have gotten in the first place.
         As sort of a sideline to a use of glue for a pay back scheme Larry did the same thing, but with epoxy, to pay phones. The phone company had given his home long distance toll charges to a federal law-enforcement agency that was trying to get evidence on illegal activities he was doing. They were able to find he had intent to do the crime, which was required in order to convict him, only because they found that he had purchased a certain piece of equipment. The out of local area business he bought it from, you see, was on his toll charges. He was mad at the phone company, which he had patronized for years, because they betrayed a professional trust he had with them. And after they did that they wouldn’t even tell him so he could at least have had a chance to cover his tracks because the feds asked them to not tip him off. He lost thousands of dollars because his legally purchased equipment, which does have legitimate uses, was confiscated/stolen by federal agents. Because his “trusted” phone company totally rolled over on him and cost him he glued out the acceptance of any new coins, to cost them, from hundreds of phones and also cut the receiver cables and took the handsets. Looking over the shoulders of people using their long-distance calling cards at pay phones to get their number and then selling them to others wanting to save on their own long-distance charges can also vent off some of the anger while at the same time making up some of your lost money. Even though this betrayal happened in 1977 he is still mad about it because he has never gotten his equipment back or any other compensation so therefore he still glues up a phone or two a month just for the principle for it.

         Scott had another parking ticket incident to report in these pages. Finding he had no coins in his pocket he immediately ran into the nearest business to ask for change for $5.00. When he got back he found the meter maid already there writing out a ticket for an expired meter and no amount of explaining would change her mind. His response was jamming up 360 parking meters. Why 360 you ask? His ticket cost $18.00 and there are 360 nickels in $18.00. One nickel was all he needed to put in the meter to avoid a ticket in the first place.

         A bar near a residential district of the average suburban community of Reseda is not liked by some local police officers because of the gay clientele that patronize it. Two police officers were known to be more particular to minor infractions happening in the immediate vicinity of that bar than they were anywhere else on their beat. Jim, a slightly effeminate young man, happened to be standing on the sidewalk near the front door of the bar on a very quiet night and was ticketed for having an open container of beer in public, a beer he bought just inside the door. Tony’s parked car was then ticketed for not having a front license plate while other cars, also missing plates, but parked a short distance away in the residential area, and obviously not belonging to bar patrons, were not ticketed. These two got together and said, “we’ll show them.”
         This is the boldest move I’ve heard of, but it made its point I’m sure. At the employees parking lot of the police station where these two officers work Tony and Jim made small scratches with something like a small sharp carbide tipped drill bit concealed in their hands in the paint of random officer’s personal nice cars as they put flyers with the following notice on the windows, “Officers _ _ _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ _ _ selectively harassed us because we’re different (gay). Actually we are different in that we won’t let them get by with it. We were rubbed the wrong way, now your car is rubbed the wrong way. It was scratched because of it. You people treat us unfair, we’re going to act likewise to you. If you’re angry because you’re an innocent victim, then see how we feel and prevent it from happening. These officers need a reprimand and a tongue lashing. Get on their asses. They caused it!” Jim and Tony felt 10 feet tall after this. They were wrongly abused and they felt great after this. Notably, the two officers were taken off that beat and the bar lived happily ever after.
         I heard on news one day where the on-board video camera was on in an unattended police car and caught a scratching vandal in the act late one night. Careful people will be aware that many police cars now have such cameras and that they may be on all the time. Therefore such inclined people will be careful, even at night, to disguise themselves before approaching the car.
         I’ll bet if Tony and Jim would have gone through customary police channels of complaint they would have gotten nowhere. Technically they did violate the law, to get their tickets in the first place, but as is often the case, sometimes it’s just the principle of the thing. It’s sometimes too big a deal just to accept it willingly. This is especially true when someone is persecuted or prosecuted for something others are allowed to do. Sometimes unorthodox steps are clearly called for.

         Speaking of having an open container of beer in public, David attended the downtown Los Angeles Street Scene Festival in 1985 for the second time in a row. At this function booths are set up where beer is sold in paper cups. Knowing this, David bought a can of beer at a liquor store a block away because ounce for ounce it was about two thirds the cost. After only a few sips he was told by foot-patrol officers to pour it out. When he objected and explained how it’s sold in the booths, he was threatened with a ticket. The same brand of beer sold by an approved street vendor is treated different than that sold by a non-vendor, although legitimate business establishment just down the street. That’s wrong, and he wasn’t going to let them take from him what he bought legitimately with his own hard earned money that what is being sold by “approved” vendors.
         Having the skewed sense of humor David happens to possess, he sort of made a ceremony out of the pouring. In a semi-prayerful way as he slowly began to pour the cold soothing liquid onto the ground he looked soulfully heavenward and said, “Heavenly Father, help these officers remember Newton’s third law of motion, ‘for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,’ enlighten them that some people will not stand for actions like these, let them be aware that some people will not get mad when they’re wronged, they’ll get even, allow them to be dealt with in the way you see fit, and encourage them to see the error of their ways. Amen!” He made sure his words were carefully chosen so as not to get arrested for making a threat. His “prayer” was an opinion of what some people are inclined to do, not a threat he intended to do. Before parting he very calmly said, “now that we’ve prayed for your misdeeds I’d like to give you a chance to make amends. 75 cents and an apology will take care of it, and it will all be forgiven.” At this point he was threatened with arrest if he didn’t get out of the officers’ faces. As he walked away he noted the officers’ name tags and mumbled to himself loud enough so they could hear him, “well they had their chance, they can’t snivel if they’re chewed out later.” David went directly to his car to get a pair of wire cutters. He then went over to a row of about 10 unattended parked police cars and snipped off their nearly foot long 2-way radio antennas. Over the stub he put a note giving the details of why and the names of the offending officers. He also took his valve stem remover and let the air out of one tire on each car. After this he went to the fair and had the best time he’s ever had. The next day he anonymously wrote the details to the Chief of Police also.

         When Brandon was at traffic court waiting for court to begin he exchanged some harsh words with the marshal on duty. Before he got to finish what he was trying to explain the marshal hostilely ordered him to not say another word or else he would be taken into custody. Knowing he meant it he shut up even though he was mad he couldn’t finish what he had to say. After he got through with court Brandon called the rude marshal on the phone so he couldn’t be taken in and told him he will now listen to the rest of what he has to say or he will regret it. Upon hearing this the marshal slammed the telephone down right in mid sentence. This then triggered Brandon into high gear and once again it was vandalism to the rescue to put this loud mouth in his place. Brandon let the air out of 10 car tires in the courthouse parking lot with a little valve stem remover he just happened to have in his car’s toolbox. He also wrote up a short note about particulars like the marshal’s name, what he did, and what it was he wanted to say to him. A few days later Brandon called the marshal and asked if he got chewed out for the flat tires. As soon as he started yelling Brandon slammed down the phone on him in mid sentence. Now he was happy. He got the last word, he got said what he wanted to say to begin with, he transferred the anger back to where it belonged, and he won. Enough said. They say that those who don’t learn by the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. It would be interesting to send someone else in as a decoy to see if the marshal had learned better manners when dealing with the public – to see if he’s now learned his lesson.

         Another imaginative vandalism of cars because of police misconduct happened because of the way Mac was arrested at his home. He was right in the middle of shaving off a week’s growth of whiskers when a police detective came a knocking at his door. As soon as he opened the door he was taken into custody, shaving lather and all. All he was able to do was to get him to wipe off the remaining lather with a towel; he wasn’t allowed to finish shaving. For two days, until he was able to get a razor in jail, he had to go around and be seen in the embarrassing position of being half shaved. When other police officers laughed at him he knew he was going to get his turn. Knowing his name would be remembered by the detective though he waited for three years until he took his turn. But before that, to be sure his name wouldn’t be remembered he called the detective from a pay phone – so his call couldn’t be traced – and asked if he remembered his name. When he found the officer remembered the incident but not his name he went around and scratched a half-moon shaped drawing – to signify how he was unnecessarily left in a half-shaped condition (I think this is a funny one here, I like it) – deep into the paint jobs of 48 nice new cars he saw at shopping-center parking lots. He then left notes behind explaining the details of how he was embarrassed by a certain detective who he named so embarrassment can go back to him. Rather than just placing these notes on the windshield where people are apt to just throw them to the ground and not read, he glued them to the immediate area of his scratch drawings with arrows pointing right to it so they wouldn’t miss that the two are connected. Why 48 cars you ask? I’m glad you did. It was a full two days (48 hours) until the embarrassment ended and he was able to finish shaving. They’re just lucky he didn’t decide to do one car for each minute he was left half done.

         Another person I talked to always carries a bucket of dirt around with him in the trunk of his car. Can you guess why? Every time he comes upon an unattended police car with its windows down he throws it in all over the seats. Why you ask? I’m glad you did. When he was arrested one time he was made to lay in the dirt before they would handcuff him even though he was offering no resistance and told them he is real fussy about his clothes. He says they didn’t respect his clothes so until they apologize and pay for the cleaning bill he will make sure he disrespects their property with dirt in as similar a way as possible.
         I saw this offense committed right on TV on the show Cops which shows us actual real police activities as they are happening. When a suspect verbally refused to lay on the ground while giving no fuss about being arrested in any way he was violently rubbed in the dirt while being cuffed. And the brazen police made no attempt in the least to hide this activity from the cameras they knew were present, that’s how acceptable this behavior seems to be. Back in 1991 Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates lamented about the murder of an officer who was gunned down while making a routine check of some people standing around. As it turned out, an illegal alien not wanted for any other crime shot the officer. Chief Gates was at a loss to explain why. Could it be the person had been roused too many times in unacceptable ways and this sight was just the straw that broke the camel’s back? In any event, this book discourages evening the score in violent ways, but if everyone who had been unnecessarily made to lay on the ground or worse, made common cleanly-dressed people on the street roll on the ground and then made it known why I’d bet enough public pressure would change some unnecessary police actions.
         Property kinds of revenge is one thing we’re finding more and more of. People who were once prone to abuse alcohol or drugs to alleviate the pain they suffer are finding more, and healthier, satisfaction comes when abusing someone else’s property. After all, they don’t care about you, but they do care about some law-abiding person’s property. Abusing yourself won’t piss them off. Abusing someone’s property will! And others are adopting this philosophy too.
         I’m seeing more and more people who have been unnecessary dirt victims are now lashing back in some vandalistic way in some nice neighborhoods to alleviate their anger and then letting the residents know what violation was done to them, who did it, that they won’t tolerate it ever again, and that they now won’t respect other people’s property in return for it.
         I’m particularly irate about this tactic because I too am a victim of the practice. After I was apprehended by employees of a Gemco store in San Gabriel in 1981 I was made to lay on the dirty ground just to get cuffed up even though I was offering no resistance. Like too many others, I was too accepting of such behavior in those days and did nothing to get vengeance on the officer or the department he works for. I could always get a copy of the police report and find out his name if I want, but, I think I’ll let that one slide by. No, I’m not getting soft – don’t worry ’bout that. I fully realize I should do it, and honestly wish I did at the time (at least maybe poured a bottle of straight bleach over racks of new clothes in the store to show them how it feels to have clothes disrespected), but, it wasn’t enough to bother me then, so I won’t let it bother me now. Whoever he is though, he can consider himself damn lucky I didn’t have the extra-picky frame of mind then that I have today. Speaking out my feelings and opinions on the matter to all of you now trickles off the anger I have today that I should have had back then, and that works O.K. for me.
         I think anyone who unnecessarily is made to lay on the dirty ground just to get cuffed up should later anonymously demand that the offending officer lay on the ground in front of his peers and TV cameras (so the one he put in the dirt can see it) and be told to wiggle around, get dirty, and be embarrassed. If some kind of non-violent revenge was continuing to be done until he complies somebody surely would eventually tell him – maybe even make him – to do “the wiggle.” Hey, let’s call it “The Wiggle Dance.” Cool! That works for me!
         Obviously, as more and more victims start recognizing that certain actions they previously accepted are really abuse and then begin to stand up to these tactics the offenders will have to start seeing the need to change their ways. They need to be taught their “felony prone” laying in the dirt position in not always appropriate or needed. It is not right to lay a calm as can be person in the dirt just so he can be handcuffed when he is not resisting in the least and is willingly surrendering with his hands high in the air. They know that too. They just do it to be bullies. (Remember when the news media told us that the cops that beat Rodney King bragged and chuckled to each other about it over the radio soon afterwards.) That’s where they have to be slammed down in the dirt themselves and given a taste of their own medicine. They need to feel the indignity of this belittling practice. I would love to see it on TV news some evening – that someone did it back to a cop while videotaping the incident and then send copies of it to numerous TV stations or to a tabloid show to broadcast it. With these tactics happening so frequently, it’s amazing a group of people haven’t gotten together long ago and did it either to a cop or to some innocent person while being sure it was for revenge to what police do to undeserving people. I have heard gang members say they would love to get a cop alone just to get him to lay spread eagle on the ground to see how he likes such degrading behavior. They could even see how he likes to be taunted with a vicious dog gnawing at his feet. Of course he wouldn’t be hurt in any way because revenge of that nature is not the subject of this book. All that would be injured is his pride, especially if it is done in front of a crowd of similar-minded people, and when they’re done he could go off with his tail between his legs in disgrace as he has left so many defendants before him. With media attention of reactions of this kind, along with their reasons, it would have brought police-sanctioned assaults to the front page long ago and a lot of innocent people could have been spared. Of course, this manual discourages personal physical-injury kinds of reactions – there are a multitude of responses possible. Actually, laying in the dirt and made to get your clothes dirty doesn’t cause any physical injuries does it?
         If they want a calm and non-resisting person to lay on the ground and get dirty they should put a clean blanket or sheet down for him or her first. And it’s almost as bad when police take you out of your car and sit you down on the dirty curb while they run a check on you. If they want you out in the open where they can keep an eye on you they better start either letting you remain standing or else have something clean for you to sit on. Make them respect your clothing. We need a deterrence against this kind of aggression. A campaign of revenge? A campaign of education? You be the judge. I’ll leave this subject for now and let you think it through. You decide if being forced to get dirty or otherwise unnecessarily roused is “acceptable” behavior.

         Another abuse of power was brought out in the media after a tourist at a Florida rest area was killed in September 1993. All young black males living in the nearby area were forcibly handcuffed and hauled in for a line up and questioning just because they fit the description given by one witness. (I wonder if a black youth with a criminal record was killed in a prominent white community and witnesses said a white person did it, would all whites living in the nearby area be dragged out in the same rude manner? Hmmm. If I had the addresses of these young black victims I would send each of them a free copy of this book and hope they could find some use for it to quell their anger.) When they were released, not only weren’t they compensated for their time (they should be paid equal to whatever their hourly wage would be had they been working) but they weren’t even taken home. If they’re forcibly taken in against their will, they should be taken back to where they were picked up when police are done with them. Even if a guy has someone to call to pick him up, that innocent person surely shouldn’t be put out either. I’d bet if some kind of revenge happened to inconvenience police in return for their inconveniencing of us they would change their ways pronto.
         Come to think of it, when we go to court with our own vehicle and are taken into custody to do a jail sentence we don’t get taken back to where we left our vehicle either. We get dumped out at the downtown county jail miles away from where our car is. They should transport us back if we request. Some of us may not have anybody to call to pick us up and even if we do that person shouldn’t be put out at their expense, especially when none of this is counted as part of the “official” punishment. And as I always say (and you’ll hear it more than once in these pages here), if something isn’t considered as part of the “official” punishment it shouldn’t be accepted as a loss.
         That goes for any suffering you have to endure that is not a part of the judge’s official pronouncement. Be it money spend in the matter such as an attorney fee or property or money lost due to being confiscated; aggravations and/or unfairnesses inflicted upon you by others, be they inmates or staff; missing an important event while in custody (I’m more mad about missing a special 50th anniversary celebration when I was in jail for two weeks back in the fall of 1976 than I am about the actual time I did in jail, the “official” part of the punishment. I would have gladly spent two months in jail if I could have attended that event, that’s how important it was – and how mad I was, and still am!); or any other item that is not a typical recognized part of the punishment.

         Some police commonly participate in what they call “P.R.” work, an acronym for “Pound and Release.” (There’s one of those darn acronyms again. Guess they like ’em too. How ’bout this one; R & F “Revenge & Forget it.” After you revenge the incident you can go along and forget it ever happened. Or R & R “Revenge & Recreation.” Hey, that one works for me.) “P.R.” means stopping suspects and “physically manhandling them to let them know their behavior should be modified.” Under “P.R.” they say, these people are not arrested, but “it makes it a memorable event for them.” Agencies participating in behavior of this kind should sternly be made aware that this behavior will me modified one way or the other or wish they had modified it. Make it a memorable event back on them. One wonders how many “P.R.” victims went out immediately after this and purposely sought out a weaker innocent victim to abuse in a similar way in the same general area that their abuse occurred. Police be advised, your “P.R.” crap may be injuring innocent very law-abiding people, the very ones you want to see injured the least.

         Kevin not only got an undeserved traffic, but he got screwed over when he paid it too soon. Too soon you say – how can that be? Well read on and find out. Wanting to get it out of the way, he went down to the court house to pay it just a few days after he got it. Then a couple weeks later he got a letter in the mail telling him he could pay the ticket by mail and save a personal appearance in court. The thing is, the price quoted in the letter was less than what a clerk charged him at his personal appearance. He went back to the same clerk for a refund for the difference but was told that being it was paid at the higher price he was out of luck. He would have gotten the lower charge only if he had waited for the letter which would have been honored. This made him mad and he had a unique way to vent off his dissatisfaction. When he was called in for jury duty on a criminal felony case he had made up his mind to vote not guilty, no matter how guilty the person was. He was the only one on the jury to vote that way. This forced the district attorney to go through the whole trial again, causing not only great cost, but inconvenience – exactly Kevin’s plan. Later that day he went down to the same traffic clerk and told her what he did and ended by saying, “you shouldn’t have overcharged me.”

         The November 6th, 1992 edition of ABC-TV’s 20/20 addressed the problem of police pulling over more blacks than whites that are merely driving through Beverly Hills and others areas too. One black victim I talked to that has had enough of this tactic said the next time it happens to him he will use his stopwatch to time the number of minutes he is delayed and then do one act of vandalism for each minute that his time was unnecessarily wasted. To top it off he would then notify the people the reason it was done and who violated him too many times to cause this action. Now here is a true revenger. Give this guy a “Monkeywrencher” metal. (That’s another term we can use. “To revenge something” is synonymous with “to monkeywrench something.” We are known as “revengers” or as “monkeywrenchers.” I like that term. I’ll buy that.) If everyone thought this way and did something about it this practice would soon cease; there would be too much public pressure to do otherwise. At the time I saw him he had not yet decided the method of vandalism he would use. I’m sure if they used their lay prone on the ground position, as they’re often apt to do too frequently, I’m sure he would intensify the vandalism ratio upward considerably, and that’s as it should be. As you can see by the examples we cover here, he has numerous choices of vandalism to pick from – if, of course, vandalism is his revenge of choice. After all, there are other options.
         There was another story I heard about. A guy going through Beverly Hills was put on ground in the felony prone position just because he was black and in a white hi-class area. When he complained a cop said it was just “police procedure.” His idea was to avenge it by saying it was just “revenger’s procedure.” On April 23, 1996 a former district attorney from Beverly Hills called KFI AM 640 radio talk-show hose Wayne Resnick and said that in the morning he often has two piles of arrest reports. One of them contains legitimate arrests. The other one has SAD (spook after dark) reports in which the victim was put in jail over night, had his car towed at his expense, and then got a lecture from the sergeant to stay out of Beverly Hills and use only Santa Monica, Wilshire, or Sunset when they are passing through. This tactic needs to be avenged real bad.

         Here’s one for the records. Darlene, a mother of two small boys walked alone to a nearby supermarket in the neighborhood they recently moved to. In her purse was some of her kids’ small toys including a toy gun. When this was seen by a clerk the police were called. They quickly arrived and upon finding the gun an officer took it from her and wouldn’t give it back. She bitched and bellered it is her son’s and they can’t do that because she did nothing illegal. She was then threatened to leave the public parking lot she was in or she would be arrested. Upon leaving she let them know they would regret stealing from her.
         True to form as a modern day revenger, she took a razor blade and cut multiple packages of breads and pastry goods open causing the store lost revenues because they couldn’t sell the no longer fresh items. When it seemed no one at the store was mad at that, she sent letters to local nearby residents telling them food at that market had been poisoned and why it was done. Of course, she didn’t actually poison anything so no one could possibly get hurt. They were only inconvenienced, cost money from lost sales, and made mad – just such things I like to see. Hurrah for Darlene. She made sure the thieving officer (who never took her name so he couldn’t come and get her) got all the blame and everybody knew what he did. I’ll bet he never steals a kid’s toy again. She never got Tommy’s gun back and had to buy another one out of her limited income, but she wasn’t mad any more. Let’s hear it for Darlene for having the guts to not tolerate an abuse by police. Hip Hip Hurray!!! That’s the only woman I heard from. Come on, where are women avengers? (Revenger and avenger are synonymous terms.) There’s got to be lots of you out there. Get on the bandwagon. Surely you’re getting screwed over too. Don’t put up with it. You have the power too.

         Tyrone’s name was on a mailing list of a person distributing pornographic material and video tapes out of his house. Although all of this legitimate to distribute material involved males and females of legal age, police, led by former Assistant Los Angeles Police Chief Dotson (when he was still in that position), decided to raid everyone on the mailing list on the outside chance someone may have had child pornography. With search warrants in hand (claiming there was a “probable cause” child pornography would be found) numerous officers came to Ty’s home and in a very vandalistic manner literally ransacked everything; dumping over boxes and emptying drawers among other things in their raucous search for pornography of any illegal nature. If that wasn’t bad enough they then confiscated (I call it stole) his personal computer, hard disk, all his extra floppy disks he uses for backups, TV, VCR, and video tapes. He knew he had done nothing illegal (and never has), and besides, other unneeded personal information he wanted no one to know about was no longer stored on his hard disk or floppies. He expected them to keep it only for a few days, after all, how long would it take to look at his files and tapes. As it turns out that wasn’t the case. Nine months later, and then only after numerous complaints, he got it all back, with the computer quite banged around and inoperative. When he complained about it being broken they responded back in a snotty way, “well sue us then.” Unfortunately he was one who just accepted the abuse and destruction with a whimper but, darn it, no bang. Shame on him!
         They’re just lucky it wasn’t my computer they took and abused. That “sue us” remark said in a smart-ass way would have triggered me off to do 10 times more than what an incident of this severity would normally do. (Especially when they took the TV and VCR. They could have left them behind and viewed the tapes with their own video equipment they have.) Smart-ass remarks from judicial personnel push my wrong buttons real quick, almost as bad as the vandalism and/or theft of my personal belongings does. If they ever throw that “probable cause” crap up in your face make sure they know there is a probable cause they will get revenged back double.
         I can not emphasize it too strongly how important it is for people in positions of power to respect the property rights of people lower down on the totem pole of power. In England back in 1991 they were about to tear down a building a guy built without a permit. After repeated pleadings to let it stay fell on deaf ears and when they were about to bulldoze it he shot and killed the leader of the destruction. There are just some people that have very short fuses when something important to them is threatened. Truly, some of these property abusers had better be on their toes. But enough of that. There is another point to this story of computer-file snooping that I want to make to those of you with access to computers and have information you don’t want anybody to know about.
         When you erase a file from your computer the file is not erased from the disk and the data involved is not actually destroyed – the magnetic information is still there waiting for the eyes of snoops to bring it back to the surface. Only the directory location for listing and finding purposes is deleted. The space on the disk occupied by the file is made available for future use as new files are saved. (That’s why utility programs like Norton Utilities can often recover files that have been thrown in the trash or otherwise deleted if no other new files have been written over that space on the disk.) Only when another file is stored over the formerly occupied space of a deleted file is the data actually lost. Several programs are available that can recover or “undelete” trashed files. I have an Apple Macintosh Classic computer and the program Norton Utilities from Symantec Corporation is one that will accomplish this if an important file is accidentally deleted or if someone wants to snoop on what you thought you threw out. There are several programs that will write over a file as it is deleted so no undelete programs will bring it back. There is one problem with these though. Let’s say you print a file on your printer and then use a program such as The Complete Delete, TrashGuard, or Shredder, which are three programs available for the Macintosh (or at least were back in ’93 when I did this research), to obliterate your file. It’s true your file is gone and no method of undelete can bring it back. But the fly in the ointment is that when you print a file a temporary file is created on your hard disk to use by the system software for printing purposes. This file deletes itself after printing is finished and, like all files, leaves behind information that can be undeleted. This is true for the Macintosh but IBM and compatible users probably face the same danger. For this problem for Macintosh users I recommend using the latest version of Norton Utilities, version 2.0. (Sorry again, this info is from ’93. I do not have the latest version so do not know if this feature is still available.) This version (and not earlier versions) has a feature called Wipe Info that will completely obliterate unused portions of your disk where deleted files still reside. It “zeroes out” old data by writing new meaningless data over the top of what was there. This program can even be configured to conform to Department of Defense security specifications, which call for three passes of write overs. You can choose to wipe just a single file like The Complete Delete does, wipe unused space to make sure temporary files are gone, or wipe a disk clean even if it has current data on it. Those wishing to keep sensitive information away from the prying eyes of snoops will run this program on a regular basis.
         Another bit of warning before we move on. If you have a Macintosh computer with a hard disk where all your system files are on your hard disk you may be tempted to keep sensitive files on a floppy disk and hide that at another location. The problem is even if you write and print from a file stored on a floppy disk and it is never moved to your hard disk, the computer still creates its temporary file for printing purposes on the disk that has the system software (System Folder), the hard disk in this case. Just be advised of this situation. I do not know about IBM and compatible computers but I would take the same precautions there too.
         You could also get a program from Kent Marsh Ltd. called CryptoMactic that will encrypt any existing files you choose, even your whole hard disk, to several levels of security including the U.S. Government Data Encryption Standard (DES) which provides a very secure level designed to keep even the best snoops out of your business. This way, even active files you want to keep around are safe. Those who have a need to keep some kind of diary or log of their activities that are not meant for anyone else, especially law-enforcement personnel, had better keep it encrypted in some way so it doesn’t come back to haunt you. Other similar encryption programs are Citadel (which comes packaged with Shredder) from DataWatch Corporation and ultraSecure from usrEZ Software. For further information on encrypting see an article in the February 1993 issue Macworld magazine titled “Data Guardians” and another in the June 1993 issue titled “PowerBook Notes, Keeping your PowerBook and date secure.” Both CryptoMactic and Norton Utilities are listed in a catalog from MacConnection and can be ordered by calling 1-(800) 800-3333. All four are listed in MacWarehouses’ catalog and their number is 1-(800) 255-6227. Other mail order and, of course, local retail outlets may also be of help. (Once again, this info is a bit old. I have heard that encryption-software distributors must provide the government with an electronic key in order to be able to decipher it if a law-enforcement organization has obtained a court order first.
         (Also be advised that deleted files from a floppy disk get copied onto another floppy disk if you drag the closed disk icon onto another closed disk icon. To avoid that open the disk window and drag the individual icons of files onto the other disk’s open window. In that way, only what you selected gets copied and not “blank” non-directory listing parts of the disk.)
         If you do not have such safety programs do this right now before it’s too late. Duplicate some of your non-secret files to fill up the blank spaces on your disk and overwrite what you have previously deleted that may be secretive. Erase them then do it twice more, assuring that you have overwritten blank places several times. (Experiments show that overwriting the blank parts doesn’t always completely erase the data. That’s why the Department of Defense requires overwriting the data three times to completely erase it. DES does that.) As a final step erase these duplicated files and you are now safe that no secret deleted files can be recovered and you have just as much free disk space as before. As a final step, shut down the Macintosh and restart while you hold down the option and command keys until you get a message asking if you want to rebuild the desktop. Click yes to do so and you are finished. This method costs you nothing, but is a little more work to do on a regular basis. Judge for yourself if you want to invest in such a program like Norton which does have some other valuable utilities in the package. Whatever you do decide, be careful!
         More and more instant copy shops are setting up computers and printers available to users on a cost per hour basis for use by the general public. Standard typewriters are also available to those wishing to send somebody something without using their own typewriter at home. This way an analysis of a person’s personal typewriter can verify it was not used to type the note in question. Each typewriter’s printing is different, even one of the same make and model, under microscopic examination. Never use one in your possession to write something that can come back to haunt you. Do yourself a favor. Take that extra step of precaution. Take your time.
         Also be advised if you xerox something you’ve typed, or had someone write for you so your handwriting isn’t on it, make sure you copy it at a place away from your home. The reason for this is that copy machine artifacts may be copied to the page and they may be traceable to a particular machine just like a typewriter’s impressions can be differentiated. Go miles away and make your copies. Be safe. Think it out. Put one over on them. Win!
         All these above paragraphs on computers were written before the internet exploded onto the scene. One can find out information on virtually any subject with little trouble at all. I typed in the word “revenge” in a search engine and come up with a number of sites that dealt with the topic. Search engines act as master indexes of the internet. Type in a word or words you want to find and it will list all sites that contain those words. If you type more than one word enclose them all in "quotes." Here are the search engines available (listed in Italics) and the URL addresses to type in your browser. Yahoo; http://www.yahoo.com/: AltaVista Search; http://www.altavista.digital.com/: Lycos; http://www.lycos.com/: WebCrawler; http:// webcrawler.com/: Excite Search; http://www.excite.com/: Infoseek Ultra; http://ultra.infoseek.com/: Hot Bot; http://www.hotbot.com/: Magellan Internet Guide; http://www.mckinley.com/: Open Text; http:// index.opentext.com/: all4one; http://all4one.com/: MetaCrawler; http://www.metacrawler.com/: Savvy Search; http://guaraldi.cs.colostate.edu:2000/./: Search.Com; http://www.search.com/: ProFusion; http:// www.designlab.ukans.edu/ProFusion.html: LookSmart; http://www.looksmart.com/: Starting Point; http://www.stpt.com/.
         One needs to be aware of though that computer servers used to log you on to the sites you choose keep logs of who visits those sites. Some government snoops wanting to see who visits certain sites they rule as inappropriate can easily trace you down and come a knocking on your door to find out why. For years careful people used pay phones to call people they want no record of on their own home phone bill. That same methodology can be used in the internet-surfing world. Many libraries have internet-connected computers that users can access for free up to an hour per day. For those of us, like me, without any internet access at home, this is our only connection to the information super-highway. For those concerned about snoops, it is another pathway they can use and still feel protected when the need is there.
         If this computer talk is not understood by non-computer users relax, no more computer talk will be spoken any where else in this book. I just wish Tyrone would have logged them in as thieves and treated them as such. They, like any of our abusers, should have been shown who’s the boss. Just make sure they know the sin(s) they committed and the punishment.

         One other tactic they all too often do when they have a search warrant is break the door down and barge their way in. The worst offense is when they do this to a person wanted for a relatively minor crime. One day in the summer of 1993 the TV newscasts showed police breaking down the house doors of people merely wanted for spraying graffiti from spray paint cans. This is ridiculous. Spraying cars with battery acid to spot the paint (as we detail later on) in retaliation, with notification as to why would be quite satisfying to even the score on the vandalistic perpetrators who would rather break doors rather than knock or ring the bell when this option is totally a proper choice. This could continue until they agreed to pay for their damages which they should do anyway. If they expect us to respect the property of others in the future they had best do it first to ours. So who are the real criminals here, the law offenders or the law enforcers? Why don’t the law enforcers get punished for their misdeeds? When proper authorities don’t remedy the matter as they should, is there any reason we shouldn’t do it ourselves? If we merely complain and ask for restitution they just laugh at us, but if everyone revenged it they would be more prompt in making good on repairs, or better yet, not doing the damage to begin with. And when I say making good on repairs, I mean make the offending cops pay for it out of their own pockets first before the city starts having to pay. All these times misbehaving cops get sued and lose, it is the city that ends up paying. Why doesn’t the first part of the winnings come out of the guilty cop’s own pockets first before the city gets stuck? They should be held personally responsible for their misdeeds, not the rest of us taxpayers. They must reap what they sow – they shall get just exactly what they deserve if we hold them accountable. Those of the general public who are mad when we vandalize something should keep in mind what police do to us and our property. Where was their manners’ training? Mark Twain once said, “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits.” Let’s see to it they get taught some judicial manners our way.

         Drew was taken in for questioning by Detective J. Noble of the Manhattan Beach Police Department and then released in a short time. The trouble is, police refused to drive him home. They picked him up at his house, a half-hour away, and now refuse to return him there. They just told him to call someone to pick him up, but being a loner he had nobody to call. He let them know in no uncertain terms that he was mad and that they don’t want to send him off in this nice neighborhood in this frame of mind. All this accomplished is a barrage of threats from officers to get out of “their” police station or else. So he did, but many nice cars he passed by on his long walk home he put a little scratch in the paint and note on it as to why and who to blame. Anyone seeing him would just think he was putting fliers on the cars. He never heard back, but I’d bet officers drive people home now if they bring them in for questioning and don’t arrest them.

         When Charles was arrested for a minor crime Van Nuys Police Detective Sgt. E. W. Metz wanted pictures of his car so victims in court could identify it. Rather than just come to his house where the car was legally parked and photograph it, they had it towed to the “official” police impound yard, which was just a privately-owned towing service, and photographed it there. To get it back Charles ended up getting charged a towing and storage fee of $25.00 (this was years ago, it would surely be much more today). If police wanted to photograph it there rather than at his house, which would have been a shorter drive for them from the police station, they could have had Charles’ parents drive it there. But no, that would have taken money out of their buddies’ pockets at the towing yard and Charles had to pay to get his legally parked car back. That should have been up to the cops to pay the $25.00, not Charles! With a little more consideration on their part neither Charles nor the cops would have had to pay a towing fee that was not necessary to accomplish their goal of taking pictures. True to the rule of modern day revengers, Charles made sure the towing yard didn’t come out money ahead at his expense. He sneaked into the yard and punctured the tires of numerous cars parked in the lot and left notes behind as to why it happened and who to blame.

         Ralph was another towing victim when he was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. When a routine check was made officers found a warrant was out for his arrest and he was taken in for further proceedings. After further checking, police found the matter had previously been cleared up and the warrant was mistakenly not deleted from the computer. In the process though his car was towed to the official police-towing yard and after he was released it was up to him to pay to get it back. That made him mad, especially because he had parked in a legal parking space when he pulled over so it should have just remained right where it was. Of course, as a true monkeywrencher, he didn’t remain mad long. He went to the police officers’ parking lot where they park their personal cars and poked 2 tires on 30 cars with an awl. Why 2 tires, why 30 cars, why an awl? I’m glad you asked. Two tires requires them to get towed, they can’t just put on the spare because that only fixes one tire. Thirty cars because it cost him $30.00 for the towing fee they should have paid for when they found the error was theirs. And an awl rather than a sharp knife because a knife would make a big gash causing air to leak out fast and loud, whereby an awl will just poke a small hole causing air to escape slowly with less noise so it wouldn’t attract as much attention. Ah, nice touch. I like that one. : - )

         Barry was taken in for questioning and accused of showing some magazines with nude women in them to some teenage boys. As it turns out he was watching a neighbor’s two kids as a favor and they on their own accord picked up the magazines from off of his coffee table and freely looked at them. The neighbor and police seemed to think Barry was at fault because he didn’t take them away from the boys. No charges were filed, but the whole mess made him mad. He cut out many of the pictures and with wallpaper glue pasted them up on the metal street light poles around the area so kids could see them. After all, if he was getting accused of showing them to kids he was going to make sure he did. This is how true revengers think. If they are going to get accused and/or punished for a crime they didn’t do, they make sure they do do it just to show them.
         Someone else said if it happened to him he would record over children’s videos, that are rented from stores, with some pornographic material. To prevent re-recording over a VCR or audio cassette, the housings have a little tab to knock out and when that is done the machine will not go into the record mode. But if tape is put over the knock out slot it fools the machine to think the tab is still there and the tape can then be recorded upon.

         Christopher was detained for loitering when he was merely hanging around an exclusive men’s clothing store doing nothing illegal. While just killing time waiting for a friend down the street to get off work he was looking through the racks of clothes, window shopping like. Because of his semi-dirty attire he was obviously not a “serious buyer” as far as the owner was concerned. A call to police about a “suspicious person” resulted in him being taken in for a brief time.
         A few days later Christopher dressed up fit to kill – or in his case, fit to cut – in order to not look out of place in that kind of store, and changed his facial appearance so as not to be recognized by the owner. While casually going through the racks of clothes he used a concealed razor blade to cut 93 pants or shirts, one for each minute he was unfairly in custody because of that owner.
         An easier way to vandalize the clothes would be to fill a small plastic eye dropper or nose drops kind of bottle with battery acid (diluted sulfuric acid which looks exactly like water) which can be purchased from auto supply stores and merely dribble the solution on the clothes as you walk by the racks. The acid eats into many materials and weakens the fibers destroying the item and costing the rotten store owner. One could also use regular clothes bleach which would spot colored clothes. Clearly, store owners need to mind their P’s & Q’s and avoid misbehavior of various sorts.

         Because this kind of vengeance is not directly attacking the judicial system, it is outside the scope of this discourse. Readers wishing to familiarize themselves with general forms of vengeful behavior directed to anyone in general who has earned their heartfelt contempt may wish to consult the following works by author George Hayduke: Get Even: The Complete Book of Dirty Tricks; Get Even 2: More Dirty Tricks From the Master of Revenge; Kickass! More Mayhem From the Master of Malice; Make ’Em Pay! Ultimate Revenge Techniques from the Master Trickster; Make My Day! Hayduke’s Best Revenge Techniques for the Punks in Your Life; Payback! Advanced Backstabbing and Mudslinging Techniques; Screw Unto Others: Revenge Tactics for All Occasions; Sweet Revenge: A Serious Guide to Retribution; and Up Yours! Guide to Advanced Revenge Techniques. I purchased the first one from: CRB Research Books, Inc., P.O. Box 56, Commack, New York 11725 for $19.95. Inside its covers I found the other Hayduke books listed and that they are all published by: Paladin Press, a division of Paladin Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 1307, Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 443-7250. Another Hayduke book I’m aware of but not in that list is: Revenge: Don’t Get Mad Get Even. Although it was found in a 1986 catalog from another book distributor, it is not listed in their current one so I don’t know of its still in print. Interested readers may wish to check with Paladin for availability on that one. I do strongly recommend you write to or call CRB for one of their free catalogs. There are a lot of other goodies in there of interest to revengers which I’ll cover a little more later on. They can be reached at (516) 543-9169. Two books I notice in their catalog are: Spite, Malice, & Revenge: Giant Guide to Getting Even, 3 diabolical books in 1 by M. N. Chunder & George Hayduke for $15.95; and High-Tech Harassment: How to Get Even with Anybody Anytime by Scott French for $20.95. Also check out ECODEFENSE: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching Second Edition by Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood. It is available from: Ned Ludd Books, P.O. Box 5141, Tucson AZ 85703 for $14.00. This one deals more with ecological matters and how to stop those who abuse the environment. But in general, stopping one kind of abuse is related to stopping other kinds. It’s all on the same wavelength. Readers may wish to contact the somewhat radical environmental organization: Earth First!, P.O. Box 210, Canyon, Ca. 94516. I’m sure all these books contain the proper standard disclaimers as being for entertainment and amusement purposes only – not for practical use etc. etc. etc.
         While the above paragraph dates back to ’93, I’m sure everything is still fairly valid. In addition to all this, use one of the above-mentioned search engines on the internet and you’ll find a wealth of information available. It’s so nice to see many other comrades out there doing what they can to help the abused among us.

         One way to throw off authorities when a not-too-common kind of revenge is done (like some of the ones we outline here) is to have a second copy-cat person continue the same actions in the very same way if the primary revenger is taken to jail. This way there is an excuse when police say, “you must have done it because this crime is hardly ever done and now that you are in custody it has all of a sudden stopped.” Copy-cats are a real hassle to law enforcement, there’s no doubt about it. When six or so arson fires were set in Southern California on October 26 and 27, 1993 authorities said they didn’t know if one person was responsible or if news reports of one arson fire the afternoon of the 26th set the others into action the next day. (For full details on all those fires check out my book; Fedbuster: The Southern California Wildfires of ’93, which covers everything about them that has been unknown to authorities until now.)
         Remember when the news media reported that a teenager had been arrested for spray painting the tag name CHAKA all over the city? After he completed his jail sentence and was released authorities noticed new Chakas started showing up in previously clean areas. He was arrested and had his probation violated even though no one had seen him do it. If his homeboys or even a stranger familiar with the story from news media coverage would have continued his exact artistic style after he was back in jail he would have had the perfect excuse that someone else had done it. Boy, how many of us could have used some “help” from copy-cats like this? I sure could have on more than one occasion.
         On the opposite extreme, if someone was mad at him they could have started Chakaing up after he got out so the blame would be put on him even though he was innocent. But that aspect is “personal-aimed revenge” rather than “judicial-aimed revenge” so we won’t go into that facet any farther. Our point is that with the proper help from friends, authorities could easily be thrown off course before they barely even get on the racetrack.

         James was cut off on the freeway while driving his work van and promptly flipped the offending driver off. After he got back to work that afternoon he found out the guy had called his boss and told him that James had cut him off and then flipped him off. As it turned out, the guy was the head security cop for the West L.A. Veterans’ Administration Hospital and he had gotten James’ license number. A few days later James called the guy, whose name he got, and pretended to be a doctor at a hospital miles away. He told the cop that his wife had been badly injured in an accident and that he should get over here as soon as possible. Later, he anonymously called the cop to laugh back that he got the last laugh when he sent him on a phony hospital trip. “That’s what you get for speaking phony about me you lying snake.” James wouldn’t disclose his positive identity, of course, so he couldn’t be guessed but he did tell the liar that if he ever screwed him over again he won’t be satisfied so easily. Fortunately for the cop, James never heard anything about it again and he’s no longer mad. Of course, going to the parking lot and scratching his car helped quell that anger too.

         These are just a few of the stories to show what the judicial system is up against when they don’t do the most appropriate of things. Clearly their actions do, at times, elicit similar kinds of responses from us. Any of the methods of vengeance could be mixed with any of the other forms of abuse reported above or even of that to follow. So far, all the vengeance has been illegal, originating from minor infractions that were mishandled. In Chapter 2 we’ll look at some more serious abuses instigated against some people who are more serious law violators.

Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]







CHAPTER 2

 

First thing, kill all the lawyers
–William Shakespeare

         Lee, a man known for having vindictive behavior, was arrested for passing two counterfeit $20.00 bills. At the time of his arrest, U.S. Secret Service Special Agents James D. Davidson and Lane McNitt confiscated his car and some printing equipment. As court proceedings were in the works he lodged numerous complaints about what he considers the theft of his property. All this got him nowhere even though he could prove the car was not used in the passing of the counterfeit currency. As it turns out, when he did the passes months earlier he did not even own that vehicle, and besides that, one witness identified him driving off in another vehicle totally different. Clearly it did not transport counterfeit currency and no legitimate or legal reason to confiscate it ever existed. But do you think they cared enough to give it back? They made no attempt to take the vehicle he really did use because he no longer owned it and it was also worth considerably less money. Maybe they thought they could make more on the sale of a more expensive vehicle. Well he had news for them – they weren’t going to come out money ahead at his expense.
         Even though he was never charged with actually printing counterfeit currency, they made no effort in the least to return his legally purchased printing equipment which has legitimate uses. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Lee is a gay man and Curtis B. Rappe, a young boisterous over zealous Assistant U.S. Attorney knew that. He also knew U.S. District Judge A. Andrew Hauk, a gruff cantankerous old man prone to nearly out of control fits of ranting and raving on occasion (one episode happened just before the start of trial aggravating both Rappe and Lee’s defense attorney), has a prejudiced attitude against gay people which has been openly expressed in court and even reported in the media. This was unknown to Lee at the time of the trial but it sure became clear later that Rappe was milking it for all it was worth. He made a special improper and highly unethical point of making sure Hauk knew of Lee’s orientation (he maliciously tried and succeeded in discrediting Lee during his testimony on the stand with some unrelated past behavior, questioning him more about that matter than the current offense he was actually on trial for). Later during appeal Rappe was harshly condemned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for this misconduct.
         As if cheating his way into a conviction on the 2 passes wasn’t enough, he and Agent Davidson then threatened Lee to give them his printing press and 51 reams of Cranes Bond 20 lb. 100% cotton (an expensive paper classified by the Secret Service as being “highly valued by counterfeiters” because of its qualities including a “crisp currency feel”) which he had safely stored at a safe location away from agent’s thieving fingers. As per an order by Hauk, agents were suppose to have a proper hearing about Lee’s property but never did. To do it right, they are suppose to bring formal forfeiture proceedings forward in order for the government to properly process seizures. Rappe never did and traditional methods of complaint involving typical red tape of a judicial system got Lee nowhere. This was only a temporary setback for angry Lee though because, true to monkeywrencher form, he knew he’d get his turn. This particular paper by the way was in unopened & sealed boxes and never used in any crime and they knew that. It clearly should never have been taken and he should have been allowed to sell it or return it to the point of purchase for a refund if their concern was that he didn’t possess it any longer, as it should have been.
         When Rappe and Davidson were cajoling Lee to give up his stuff he said, “it’s for sale, you can buy it.” This brought a weird look from their faces as if to say, “who do you think you are expecting us to pay for it?” The thing is, they have been paying for it dearly ever since to this day. Their thievery has cost them many many times over.
         True to form of a typical revenger, he took every opportunity, while serving his time, to teach anyone interested his printing trade secrets so to speak. He even wrote up a little booklet explaining the details involved in printing American currency. His students/inmates even learned how to print other useful documents besides money. Various kinds of identification documents can allow aliens to be in the U.S. and cost the system more. And fugitives can change their identity to avoid capture. Monkey wrenches were flying all over the place and his sentence flew by.
         Being a ham-radio enthusiast familiar with 2-way public service radio frequencies, he made sure interested parties knew the Secret Service radio frequencies in the Hi VHF band to be able to determine if and when they were under surveillance.
         Now we come to our first situation of revenge that is not illegal. Lee was determined to cost them more than they made off the sale of his confiscated/stolen equipment and car. These items were eventually sold at public auction. Ink and paper companies routinely call the Secret Service when private people buy certain kinds of paper or certain colors of green ink because they are considered “suspicious orders” when private individuals buy them. Lee knew there is nothing illegal about buying these papers which have legitimate uses, but from experience he also knew it would put him under surveillance once again. This time it was his ball game and he was up to bat.
         A purchase of two reams of Cranes Crest 20 lb. White Wove 100% cotton, a paper also classified as being “highly valued by counterfeiters,” brought him under constant surveillance as his police VHF scanner verified. Everywhere he went his entourage was sure to follow. Who else but the President of the United States gets such escort attention form the Secret Service. This is the closest he’d ever get to presidential honors. He had them hooked, now to reel them in. While under surveillance, he made a few ink purchases and pretended to shop for printing equipment at graphic arts supply houses. Now it was just a matter of leading them around and wait for them to come forward as they surely would eventually do. He was followed for weeks everywhere he went, even on his truck-driving delivery route. Some days a helicopter was used, other days up to six vehicles. This helicopter would hover in the high distance until he was seen walking out of the house toward his car. A radio call from a nearby spying van signaled it to get closer and prepare to follow him wherever he went. For awhile a beeper, magnetically attached underneath his vehicle transmitted his location to their car equipped with special receivers and an unusual antenna arrangement. It also transmitted on the VHF band and was powered by four D batteries sealed in a heavy duty waterproof case. It was not some tiny hidden transmitter. This was more than he hoped for. Surely this would cost them a few pennies. After about seven weeks and a cost of thousands they decided to bring him in for questioning. They couldn’t do anything more than that and he knew it. He had done nothing illegal. As it turns out though, this legal revenge temporarily backfired on him.
         January 11, 1980, the day of judgment finally came. As Lee arrived back at work after a long day’s drive he was approached by a bright eyed plain clothes agent with a smile on his face and flashing his badge. His face seemed to be saying “now we got you,” but his look quickly turned to dismay when Lee spoke up equally bright eyed saying, “Hi guys, I’ve been waiting for you, I’ve been listening to you. I knew you’d come out of hiding one of these days. Do you have my six thousand eight hundred dollars yet?” “What six thousand eight hundred dollars?” the surprised agent, who Lee soon learned was Special Agent Michael C. Tarr, asked. “Five thousand six hundred dollars for my equipment and unused paper you took without following the proper forfeiture procedures and twelve hundred dollars for my car that you knew wasn’t used to transport the counterfeit currency I was convicted of and therefore should never have been taken in the first place,” Lee said. Tarr’s smile quickly vanished and Lee’s got wider. This was his ball game, it was the bottom of the 9th, and he had one more pitch to go for a third out. His questioning by several agents at their downtown L.A. field office ended up being more of a tongue lashing reprimand back to them. When asked, “if you knew we were following you, why didn’t you just come forward?” Lee’s chipper response was, “what – and spoil all the fun, this was my cat and mouse game guys. [Rappe had previously accused Lee of playing cat and mouse with the Secret Service before his arrest when he wasn’t, so now he made sure he let them know he was doing it this time.] I haven’t had this much fun in years. It’s almost better than sex. Now give me my stolen property back!” His self-satisfied smug look sent chills of anger down the agents’ backs, but they couldn’t do anything about it. He hadn’t broken the law. I just love revenge that doesn’t breaks the law. You can enjoy it to the max without fear of getting arrested and irritate the hell out of ’em.
         Lee proudly showed them the radio he listened to them with. By now he was on a first name basis with Tarr which irritated him to no end. “Mike ol’ buddy, tune in your standard surveillance frequency and I’ll tune you in here,” Lee boastfully said as he was showing off his radio. Mike looks at the radio and noting the dials position says to his fellow agent in the car, “key up Baker frequency.” “Testing 1, 2, 3,” was the response. A flabbergasted look appears on Mike’s face as Lee says while making a waving scolding finger motion, “thou shalt not use Baker frequency on me again. You know, if you were to give me my six thousand eight hundred dollars I would be tempted to not tip people off that you have under surveillance or teach others how to counterfeit money.” By the way, Baker frequency, which is only one of many frequencies assigned to the Secret Service by the Federal Communications Commission, is located at 165.7875 MHz.
         Oddly, when agents trailed Lee nearly 5 years later for a few days just to see if he was up to any of his old printing tricks, when he noticed them and turned on his radio, where do you suppose he found them on the dial? That’s right – right there at Baker frequency. These dimwits didn’t even check past notes from previous agents to determine that Baker was no longer a “secure” channel. Wonder if these kids skipped their homework in grade school too? Hmmm. They had a bunch of channels to choose from too. It wasn’t like the FCC allotted only Baker channel to ’em. They could have even used one up in the UHF frequency range, which they knew that old radio of mine didn’t pick up.

         By listening to their various frequencies, anyone can quickly determine who is under surveillance and where they are. Law-enforcement organizations often keep a person under surveillance for a period of time when they suspect criminal activity. It is possible that if someone tips a person off they will resume law-abiding behavior and it will screw up the authoritys’ cases because they cannot now entrap them into doing something illegal. Authorities often have to catch them in the act because before this, they only have suspicions of criminal activity. They have even been known to manipulate and set up situations to prompt a suspect and make it easier for him or her to commit a crime. This is not right and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
         They pulled these shenanigans on John DeLorean and it cost him a ton on money to defend against. Anyone of lesser financial wealth would have gotten convicted and sentenced to serious time.
         Some vengeful people take great pleasure in using electronic devices to counter authoritys’ efforts, because authorities use these devices, sometimes improperly, to counter other people’s efforts. They should be stopping crime; not enticing, encouraging, or providing an opportunity for it so it is easy to commit just so they can catch someone in the act. Worse yet, they sometimes won’t arrest someone they’ve seen committing a minor crime because they want to catch him committing something more serious. That’s not right. It would be more proper and beneficial to counsel and encourage a suspect away from crime, not hope he does one so they can look good to their superiors when they make an arrest. It’s because of things like this, that some of us take great pleasure in making them look bad and screwing up an arrest.
         Disclosing surveillance information to a suspect (or even teaching others printing “trade secrets”) may violate certain laws by being considered “interfering with police activities” or “obstructing justice” (as if some of what they do doesn’t obstruct justice), therefore those engaged in it often cannot come right out and admit it. Notice Lee didn’t say, “give me my money or I’ll do….” He just used round about wording just so they’ll “know” what will happen if they don’t give him his money back. Nearly 15 years later he still occasionally listens in and tips off when he feels in a vindictive mood, although now it’s down to no more than once or twice a month. O.K. three times at the most, but it hasn’t been more than four times in one month since last year, Ha, Ha! (This info is dated. I only know he was still active back in ’93 at it.)
         As far as disclosing surveillance information, or even teaching printing “trade secrets,” is concerned, in a condemnatory letter to the Secret Service Lee clearly indicated his teaching and disclosing activities will be a continuing part of his recreational hobby activities to help recoup unnecessary losses he previously sustained and also to help thwart law enforcement’s sneaky practices to entrap others. Revenge as a recreation you say? Sure, why not? Some people play golf for recreation. Revengers get revenge for fun and sometimes profit – or in the very least, restitution. To this day, no law-enforcement personnel at all (he got into tipping off anyone he heard under surveillance, even if agencies that have never done him wrong were involved) have offered any comment on these activities and not the least hint of an objection about his having this ongoing fun now or in the future. Apparently, if it is illegal, they don’t care if it’s done. If it is O.K. to do then, maybe those engaged in it don’t have to do it behind closed doors. They can freely enjoy it to the max. Party time!!!
         After a brief period of questioning, Lee was released only to find numerous agents, led by his old buddy, Special Agent Michael C. Tarr (they all seem to call themselves “Special,” is there such a thing as a regular agent? Hmmm), had searched his parent’s home where he lives earlier in the day. As if to purposely incite his anger, searching agents, the wicked malcontents that they were, were very malicious as they ransacked and vandalized the home, particularly Lee’s bedroom. Although he can’t prove it, he’s sure they knew how extremely neat and fussy he is about his personal property. As if a slap in the face, they even had the nerve to leave their dirty empty McDonald’s food wrappers from their lunches laying inside his desk drawers. As if that wasn’t bad enough, items were taken outside where it was raining and they were getting damaged. When his innocent mother spoke up to complain she was very rudely spoken to and threatened to stay seated or she would be handcuffed. These improper searches could just as easily have been done properly and that would accomplish their goal just as effectively – if not more so.
         As law enforcement runs into more and more of us revengeful monkeywrenchers prone to settling scores against tactics such as these, they’re bound to wake up or find themselves losing more than they can afford and getting embarrassed to all hell. They may have a right to search, but not to destroy or be malicious about it. They’re nothing but criminals and should be treated as such, plus they need to be taught some proper manners. Make sure they know the consequences of their destructiveness and that you’re serious. The ideal situation is to find out where they live so you can do the exact same thing to their personal possessions. Realistically though, this usually isn’t possible and other inventive methods of satisfaction are needed. If anyone has a tactic not covered here please feel free to write the details to me. I will give complete credit to all contributors unless, of course, anonymity is requested. You can feel rest assured your name or address will never fall into the hands of nosy snoops that have no business having it. All “hot” material is promptly disposed of in the fireplace.
         Even though Lee had no illegal materials or equipment at his home (and no criminal charges were ever filed or a parole violation imposed) agents, working in cahoots with Rappe to conspire this crime, seemed determined to not leave empty handed. They were going to screw him back as bad as they could no matter what it took. With a search warrant stating they could take anything having to do with photography and printing they ended up taking a light-duty movie camera tripod and movie camera lights which belonged to Lee’s father and clearly, without a doubt, had nothing to do with counterfeiting in any way, or any crime, and they knew it yet they took them anyway without concern for propriety. Their innocence could not be disputed at all because, by their very nature, these items are not used in the manufacture or distribution of counterfeit currency in any way which any dummy knowledgeable of such things very well knows. Process cameras used to photograph currency are heavy pieces of equipment that stand on the floor. You do not put them on a flimsy tripod. But do you think agents cared? Do you think they started to care when they found our what their misbehavior ended up costing them and society later on down the line by the way of my returned revenge? Hmmm. Lee was particularly mad about the camera tripod and lights because first of all, they weren’t his, and second, they had, and have, sentimental value as Christmas gifts from friends years earlier and should not have been taken to begin with.
         Lee’s father formally complained in writing to U.S. Magistrate James J. Penne who authorized the search warrant and promptly received word from him that he transferred the complaint to the head U.S. Attorney, Andrea S. Ordin. They never even got the courtesy of a reply from her, let alone an apology or the return of the innocent movie camera tripod and movie camera lights. After this vandalism and theft Lee knew that in some way he would get his turn. These actions of grave disrespect to his property were instrumental in his decision to disrespect other people’s property by way of considerable vandalism to nice cars a few years down the line. (Details on this vandalism are given later in this chapter where he teamed up with Thomas, another revenger from way back, to accomplish it.) Lee often says his only regret is that he didn’t let the individual victims know the circumstances for his lashing out and who really caused it by way of improper behavior. He wishes the guilty vandalistic culprits in their criminal acts could have gotten barraged with tons of citizens’ complaints about their misbehavior. In any event, Rappe and his bag of cohorts, dunces that they are, all come out the goats in this mess.
         By the way, Lee found out afterwards from the person who picks up the trash from their neighborhood that agents approached him before he got to Lee’s house and had him just dump the cans in the truck without running the truck’s compression mechanism to feed the trash farther back in the truck. Farther down the street agents recovered Lee’s trash in hopes they could find some evidence they could use against him. They never did, of course, but the point of the story is to make you aware of these sneaky tactics. If you have any sensitive material to dispose of keep it separate from your regular trash and dispose of it in a safe way. Agents could just as easily rummage through your trash the night before it is picked up so you may want to save it inside until the next morning. And you should also know they do not need a warrant in order to search your trash because once it is put out on the street it is not considered your property any longer. If they find evidence in it without a warrant they can use it against you. Beware!

         Those law-enforcement personnel prone to disrespecting other people’s property need to begin taking their misactions more seriously. This is particularly worth mentioning because one highly-sensitive person I talked to said he is so fussy about his personal possessions – and has become more so over the years as he has aged – that a similar kind of misdeed would likely trigger off a McDonald’s massacre kind of situation if he were ever to be violated again like he was the last time. (You may also recall that James Huberty shot and killed numerous patrons, some of them being young children, in a San Ysidro, California McDonald’s back in 1984. And more recently, on October 16, 1991, George Hennard did the same thing to random adults during lunchtime at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.) In fact, several people I interviewed said that if they were old and ill or had a terminal disease and knew they only had a short time to live (like TV star Michael Landon was aware of before he died) and with nothing to lose they would do it now to avenge what has already been done to them and let a bunch of people know what being a victim really means. Truly, we have to get the message out to the judicial system – STOP leaving abused victims in the wake. Wake up before it’s too late; or later than it already is. It’s truly not worth the gamble. It’s high time they start believing that before much more time goes by because we’ve now reached the point where we won’t tolerate it any more no matter what! Wonder how many are just a notch or two below that point of no return? I really don’t want to know. No more underestimating an angry man with nothing to lose, O.K.?
         I have no idea how many folks are teetering on such a precarious ledge of emotional instability. But a long career in the judicial-abuse activism field has convinced me their numbers are large, and one certain thing, depending on the person, is just the sort of thing that could set them off. You see folks, human beings cannot be dumped upon over and over again by unjust, uncaring systems – or simple neglect – without an explosion. We need to be sensitive and alert to the conditions that can cause human explosions. Perhaps an openly expressed “don’t accept being screwed or cheated” approach by all of us victims will serve as a wake-up call to those who see us as nothing but sheep to be fleeced.

         One story is notably creative. Radio conversations indicated agents were about to move in on a suspect’s house. Knowing Lee would be recognized by agents he didn’t dare openly approach the house to warn the occupant. But not knowing the phone number he had no choice. Lee quickly dashed to a nearby store that sells wigs and beards. Making himself up as a homeless old man he then grabbed a cart and some trash from in back of a market. To make it look authentic he stopped at each house on the block so surveillance agents would see what appears to be an old homeless trash collector. At the house in question Lee quickly filled the occupants in, they thanked him, and he was on his way to finish up “collecting junk” from on down the block. Within hours the house was raided. Radio conversations confirmed they got nothing and boy were agent’s pissed. Lee said to himself, “they should have apologized and given me my six thousand eight hundred dollars back [which has now grown considerably over the years with lost bank interest] when they had the chance.” Someday when agents get tired of losing cases maybe they will. Another way to tip off an under-surveillance house is to send them a pizza and include a note in the box letting the occupants know the situation.

         A word needs to be said about improper confiscations. In the late 1980’s the news media reported on crackdowns by authorities to a level they called “zero tolerance.” Within this guideline, even if a small amount of illegal substance, for personal use only, is found in a vehicle, boat, plane, or home that property can then be seized. This is way out of line and should not be allowed. If a person is proved to be making his or her money illegally and that money purchased the item in question, only then should it be seized. Someone who occasionally smokes a joint and who bought their vehicle, or home, or whatever with legally obtained money should not stand by and idly let authorities get by with this travesty of justice. Authorities must surely be able to realize that as more and more of these kinds of confiscations are perpetrated, serious repercussions are bound to surface.
         The April 5th, 1992 edition of CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, and later repeated on August 8th, 1993, reported on the civil forfeiture laws of 1987. They told us that unlike criminal proceedings where prosecutors have to prove you are guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in these civil laws your property can be taken from you on just a “preponderance of the evidence” and you have to prove you’re innocent to get it back – not they prove you guilty in order to keep it. And sometimes the theft victim isn’t even charged with a crime. But to top that off though, to even get a hearing on the matter you have to post a non-refundable bail. Now you’re liable to lose not only your confiscated item, but the bail won’t be returned. Why haven’t victims of this abuse put a stop to this practice long ago? Why are they putting up with it? Hmmm. Get it in gear victims. This is nothing more than government-sanctioned theft. Although they obviously don’t consider it as such, this is a criminal operation and the only way to stop it is a radical operation. It must not be tolerated any longer. If you don’t think there is a chance of winning through radical means just look how the various radical environmental groups are beginning to affect how destroyers of the environment are changing their habits. No more whaling, limited logging, fur industry all gone – all because radical activists dug their hooks in and put their foot down.
         60 Minutes reported on a gardener traveling with $9,000.00 in cash to another city to buy some plants which he could get cheaper if he paid by cash. When airport authorities reported seeing his cash police were called and, even though he had no drugs on him and had done nothing illegal, his money was taken merely because they “suspected” he was going out of town to buy drugs. There logic was that he fit the “profile” of a drug dealer because he was traveling with a large sum of cash in an airport known to be frequented by drug dealers and he was only making an overnight trip to a town known to cater to drug dealers.
         Several other people had thieving confiscations committed against them and their stories were reported too. One man lost his airplane because a paying passenger he had never met before had a large sum of cash with him and, if I remember correctly, a tiny speck of drugs. According to the repeat segment, many of the victims reported on did eventually get all or most of their stolen goods and money back, but only after they were forced to pay exorbitant fees to attorneys and wait many months. And the government never paid for the interest they lost by not being in the bank where it would have been had it not of been stolen.
         (The January 30, 1998 edition of 20/20 did a report on FBI profiles and the danger it does. They reported how someone can become a suspect only because they fit a certain profile.)
         Another story I heard about from another show involved a guy who had his bar seized because an employee was caught running a gambling ring without the owner’s knowledge. Federal agents barged in one day and yelled at the owner in a real rude way to “get out it’s ours now.” He then had to pay thousands in “extortion” money as a deal in order to get his bar back from the government or else wait months for a court hearing, which would have meant thousands more lost because the business would have remained closed the whole time. In this case, drugs weren’t even involved, yet somehow the bar was taken by way of that seizure law that has just gotten way out of hand.
         Then how about the woman traveling from a country known for its drug trafficking who was stopped when a drug sniffing dog detected the scent of drugs on her luggage. Overzealous agents claimed she was a courier and that alone was used to justify taking $39,000.00 of hers which she was going to use to buy a condo with. No drugs were found and she was never charged with a crime, yet they did not give her her money back.
         Agents are placing a lot of faith in assuming that law-abiding people will not come back on them. The thing is though, the more it happens, they have got to know that someday they’re going to get stung bad. They can only roll the dice so long before snake eyes comes up. Imagine the outcry if a Killeen, Texas style massacre happens and the judicially-abused victim lets it clearly be known what triggered it off. We’ve already seen courthouse shoot out situations by people who had lost everything and were literally beaten down by the system so badly they couldn’t take it any longer. And these were average non-lawbreaking people. Criminally-minded kinds of people, with their more apt to break laws mentality, may reach this point sooner than the regular law-abiding folks. Just keep that in mind thieving agents and hope you won’t have to explain and justify your actions to a community in mourning.
         I know several instances where inmates who lost personal property to confiscations planned to go into dope dealing or counterfeiting after they got out of prison just long enough to make up the value of their losses. And this was losses of items purchased with the illegal gotten gains from their crime – imagine if they lost legitimately purchased property with legally-earned money. (That was the case in Lee’s situation. All his confiscated printing supplies were purchased with legitimately hard-earned money.) In agents’ overzealousness to stop drug trafficking they are, in some cases, encouraging extreme revenge tactics along.
         And they wonder why we lash back at them? They can’t be that naive can they? Ya – because they keep doing it. One of these days though, they’re going to pick the wrong person. Remember the First Blood Rambo movie? It’ll make the news and I’ll say – doesn’t surprise me. Surprises me it took so long for somebody to do it. That’s the surprising thing! Shall we all count the days, weeks, months, years – fill in the word that you think will fit – until it does or will we try to fix it? Cast my vote for fix!
         For those self-employed victims it may have been easier and cheaper for them to forget the regular formal red tape procedures they are told to do and just adjust the income they report on their income tax forms for the next few years so the difference between what they pay and what they would have paid if they hadn’t of had to shift things around would equal what was stolen. This way they come away with exactly the same amount of total assets they would have had, had the theft never of taken place. And that’s the way it should be. The victim shouldn’t lose one cent on the deal. I know in my case I will never ever again be cost one cent because of some judicial-system dealing I may have. And that includes traffic tickets. I’m too mad and owed too much to even think of letting them make anything off of me again. Even if I am guilty of a traffic infraction I won’t pay the ticket. I’ll do the day or two in jail instead. That way they are cost and I have the same amount of money in my pocket. And as tight as I am with my hard earned money (my jobs have always been manual labor, not an easy sit down at a desk job) that’s better anyway. If I’m not cost anything I’m less apt to be tempted to revenge it. I just hope if and when the time comes some judge won’t do something stupid like not allow me to do jail time instead of pay the fine.
         People who work for others do not have this option available because employers take deductions out before you ever get your pay check and legitimate employers report all your earnings to the proper authorities. This leaves these theft victims with figuring out other ways to get their money back. Whatever you do though, don’t let the criminals get by with it. I’ve had this happen to me and, even though it was years ago, I remain particularly angered by these practices and by those who commit them. Just don’t give in, you can get YOUR money back you shouldn’t have lost – you just sometimes have to be imaginative and inventive. If you fail, remember it is a lot easier to cost them 10 times your loss so at least they won’t make anything on their misdeed(s). That does provide some comfort. It helps one guy I talked to deal with the loss of his property to the Secret Service years ago, only he didn’t stop at 10 times. In his case, his anger level is way too high to end his vendetta yet. In fact, because he doesn’t expect them to give him his property back, he expects his monkeywrenching to be a life-long affair, lasting till he’s old and feeble. We’ll probably still see him at it 40 or 50 years from now. Now that’s a monkeywrencher after my own heart. I salute such dedication. Hip, hip, hurray!!!
         And, by the way, when some legitimate to own item is stolen from you under the guise of “being confiscated” you should assess its value as being the cost you paid to purchase it, not its current value you could get if you were allowed to sell it. If “judicial thieves” are going to steal it from you rather than allow you to sell it for its value as a used item, then charge them full price what you paid at the time of purchase – no discounts. They got nothing coming when they steal it – no price breaks!
         One particularly very tragic situation is when some communities will confiscate a person’s car for a relatively minor offense like soliciting a prostitute. If they do that with any regularity one of these days they’re going to tick off the wrong person and all hell is going to break loose. Just like I am not surprised in the least when some disgruntled person goes on a shooting spree when they reach the end of their rope, I will not be surprised when a confiscating-happy community gets the crap kicked out of them for their improper thefts. It just has to be grilled in them that confiscations of legally obtained and owned property is not a cost-effective operation to engage in. Only then will they think twice about doing it. Only then will they keep their thieving grubby fingers to themselves. Only then will they quit! These thieves must be put in their place. They must be taught they can’t do these things and expect to keep their ill-gotten gains. They need as much bad press as anyone can give them.
         I’ve been known to pick up a prostitute or two in my earlier years. All I can say is, heaven help the community that would have stolen my vehicle. Another thing some communities do is publish in the local newspaper the names and home addresses of those who solicit prostitutes to embarrass them. These in particular need to be embarrassed back. Hint, hint! Maybe publish and distribute, in the county jails and courthouses for defendants to see, the names and home addresses of misbehaving judges and others who are known to do wrong. That will give them the bad press they so rightfully deserve. If they knew their addresses were out and about maybe they would be more careful. I’ll speak more about this later and make you an offer I hope you won’t refuse.
         On another case I heard about on TV was all the books at a book store were confiscated and destroyed even though only 7 or so were judged obscene. And they have the audacity to be mad at us when our retribution goes beyond what is proper? So what do you call this? Why weren’t just the 7 destroyed and the rest given back? Why did the book store owner not do the same thing back to their legitimate property? The only way these abuses will stop is if each and every victim hits them back with equal intensity.
         Some say time does or should heal all wounds. I say it shouldn’t and doesn’t! Increasingly, more victims of judicial abuse are tending to be found in this later category, and that make me happy.
         Before we get back to Lee’s retribution and while we’re just past a paragraph covering the topic of improperly-acting judicial personnel in relation to drug issues, let’s digress a moment more to cover Michigan’s “650 law.” This law’s mandatory requirement puts drug dealers in prison for life without the possibility of parole if they sell 650 grams or more of cocaine or heroin. Besides being way out of line in relation to the offense committed, another major police misconduct here is that cops won’t bust a guy they see selling a smaller amount because they want to catch him selling 650 grams or more. That way they can give him the mandatory life without parole. Several TV talk shows have reported on the case of a small-time young adult offender, maybe still in his teenage years at the time of the crime, who sold a small amount of cocaine to undercover police, worthy of a short prison sentence at most. They then prompted him to get more and more and when he went over the 650 limit they busted him and the judge gave him life without the possibility of parole. He never sold that much before and wouldn’t have this time if he hadn’t of been pressured and cajoled into it by police. If this isn’t a good enough reason to listen in on surveillance officers so we can help those about to be entrapped then what is? Anyone who has been kept under surveillance and not arrested after they did a more minor crime (I am a victim of this tactic) just so police can get them doing more than they already did should be hot on the surveillance trail of potentially offending officers and monitoring the heck out of the police and/or government bands. I’ve hiked those trails for years since my first victimization and have enjoyed every outing I’ve been on. Just keep in mind – every surveillance officer is a potential offender until it’s proved he or she always does things properly.
         Don’t let them set up an opportunity for crime just so they can watch it happen and then arrest someone they could have just as easily swayed off before an offense was committed. I did that more than once when I knew vice officers had an area staked out and women police officers were dressed up as hookers to try to entrap men into asking them for sex. I made up a big poster sign saying “police hooker trap ahead” and waved it at passing motorists. If I could have had somebody at the other end for cars approaching from that direction I could have prevented all prostitution on that street and done it without getting anyone in trouble. Police could stop it too before people step over an illegal line. They’re suppose to be preventing crime. They can do that without creating crime.
         Fortunately, extensive coverage in both print and on the talk shows is giving pressure to Michigan to change this law into something more reasonable. (This being 1998, I don’t know what the status of it is today.) Unfortunately though, other states not under as much public pressure have their own 650 kinds of laws with lesser but still stiff mandatory minimums. And the Federal Government has mandatory minimums also for drug offenses that are way beyond what a reasonable sentence should be. We badly need more people to listen in to the police and government bands.
         In one case, state authorities were working together with the feds on a case that involved violations of both state and federal statutes. It was the state law-enforcement officers that made the actual arrest, but they let the feds prosecute him so they could confiscate some antiques his mother (with whom he lived) has owned for many years and which had nothing to do with his crime at all. If the state would have prosecuted him under state statutes he could have gotten just as much time, but they could not have taken her antiques because there are no confiscation provisions in the state statutes. The old saying, “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” needs to apply to our abuses equally well. “If they can’t take the reaction (revenge), don’t do the action (abuse).” They best be ready to accept the consequences of their thieving actions.

         Lee’s techniques of tipping others off could be used on any law-enforcement agency. Even a criminal involved in a particular activity can get a listing of the frequencies used by the agency that would be apt to have him or her under surveillance. Electronic stores that cater to amateur (ham) radio equipment are apt to have such books. One could try Henry’s Radio in West L.A.; Sandy’s Electronics with stores throughout the L.A. area; Mar Vac Electronics, 1759 E. Colorado Bl., Pasadena, CA, (626) 793-1195 (with stores also located in L.A., Montclair, Costa Mesa, and elsewhere); Ham Radio Outlet, 2492 W. Victory Bl., Burbank, CA, (818) 842-1786 (with stores in Anaheim and elsewhere);, and any Radio Shack stores. Bearcat Scanner Company also publishes several frequency directories. You can get the Betty Bearcat: National Police Frequency Directory listing all 50 states or just directories for your local region. Call the Bearcat Radio Club at (800) 423-1331 for information or see a local Bearcat dealer. Of course you’ll also want a listing of U.S. Government radio frequencies. Here is where once again our friends at CRB Research Books, Inc. (see address and phone number above) comes in. Their The “Top Secret” Registry of U.S. Government Radio Frequencies for $21.95 has listings for the FBI, DEA, Customs, BATF, Secret Service, IRS, CIA, Immigration, Border Patrol, U.S. Marshal, Treasury, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Mint, State Dept., Dept. of Justice, White House, armed services and numerous other government agencies. I think the most important thing scanner hobbyists can do is get CRB’s free catalog. With this and other directories sold by them, I’m sure interested listeners will find all their listing needs will be met from just this one source alone. (Sandy’s is no longer at its Coldwater Canyon address and I don’t know if any of their other stores are still around. You may have to do some of your own footwork, but at least you got a start here.)
         Here are a few more books I saw on the shelves at Mar Vac Electronics (back in ’93) and addresses where they can be purchased directly from the publishers so those out of town folks living too far away will have access to them: Frequency Assignment Master File; Federal Assignments published by; Artsci Inc., P.O. Box 1848, Burbank, CA  91507, (818) 843-4080 for $24.95; and Gene Hughes’ Original Police Call Radio Guide available from; California Radio Communication Co., P.O. Box 35102, Los Angeles, CA  90035, for $8.95.; At Sandy’s Electronics I saw the same Gene Hughes’ Original Police Call Radio Guide available from this slightly different address; Hollins Radio Data, P.O. Box 35002, Los Angeles, CA  90035, for $8.95 for Volume 9 covering California, Oregon, and Washington. Other states are available too.
         As you can see these books are easy and legal to come by. More sources can be found by checking the ads in the back of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines. Listening in, in itself, is not illegal and makes a great hobby in and of itself. A scanner radio is highly advisable over a manual dial-tuned radio. Police communities often have numerous assigned frequencies and a scanner can be programmed to scan a wide range of specific frequencies at a time, stopping only on those busy channels as long as they’re in use. The books list every conceivable frequency of every agency often to three decimal places.
         While checking out Popular Science and Popular Mechanics’ ads notice companies that deal with anti-bugging/anti-surveillance and anti-wiretapping equipment. Sometimes people have been arrested only when a police informant, wired with a tape recorder or transmitter, gets a suspect to say something incriminating. (My extra strong activism on teaching others about this danger arose from my own victimization to these tactics on more than one occasion. It is particularly satisfying knowing I am helping defeat this process even in a small way from continuing.) Some smarter cautious people will use a pocket pager size device that picks up any hidden tape recorder or transmitter in the immediate area and vibrates in the pocket if it does. Such devices are perfectly legal because there are legitimate purposes in the business world where corporate spies exist.
         As reported in the February 1989 issue of Popular Science page 23, courts have even ruled in favor of self-protection devices. In a verdict upholding a citizen’s right to use a radar detector, Judge Joseph Ryan, Superior Court, District of Columbia, wrote: “If government seeks to use clandestine and furtive methods to monitor citizen actions, it can ill afford to complain should the citizen insist on a method to effect his right to know he is under such surveillance.”

         Enter Tom, a precocious electronics technician, who is legally getting his vengeance by educating and motivating any interested inmates on the use and advantage of such devices for personal protection and privacy. Catalogs from some of the companies listed in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics also list other elaborate devices to “sweep” for hidden listening dangers anyone can legally purchase. Tom’s idea is that if someone protects himself to avoid capture it throws a monkey wrench into the wheels of that agency and he gets a chuckle. He of course uses the proper disclaimer in his lectures as to how there are legitimate purposes for these devices and he is not encouraging their use for illegal behavior etc. etc. Several years ago I was often hearing him recommend that prospective buyers contact: Research Electronics Inc., 1570 Brown Ave., Cookerville, TN 38501. They are recognized around the world as one of the leading manufactures of personal counter-measures equipment. Their products include: R.F. (radio frequency) bug sweeping units, pocket sized bug/tape recorder detectors with silent vibrating alert, compact portable voice scramblers for telephone/cellular phones with over 13,000 selectable codes, and laser/microwave defeat systems which thwart the use of buried wall mics as well as laser beam reflections off windows. A catalog of these and others is available for $2.00 from the address above. Readers wishing to learn more about the clandestine world of bugging and counter-measure techniques and uses of equipment should consult the August 1987 issue of Popular Science. Another source is Personal Protection Products, 405 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022. (212) 421-4757. They sell devices that change your voice over the phone, phone guard products to detect taps or eavesdroppers, bug detectors, and various other devices of interest to readers of this book. Also make a call to The Counter Spy Shop at (202) 785-8924. (And here’s a place I know was in existence as recently as 1996 because I heard their ads on radio when I was in prison in Arizona: Spy Headquarters, 1235 E. Northern Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85020 (602) 371-0988. And they have a second store at 1450 W. Southern Ave, Mesa, Arizona 85202 (602) 464-9882.)
         Some defendants who are threatened with a higher sentence if they don’t snitch on someone make a point, after they get out, of aiding others to avoid arrest to make up the help they gave threatening law-enforcement people. This helps them vent off the continuing anger they acquired because of the threat. One thing that can really piss off some small-time drug offenders is that a major-drug offender can get a smaller sentence if they turn in a smaller dealer and then that very same smaller dealer can get more time than his big-time snitch because he had no one to turn in. Where is the fairness here? Shouldn’t the bigger offender get the more time in the same basic case? Doesn’t this make another good reason to monitor frequencies and protect potential set-up people? Get those radios folks. Get the last laugh – monitor their transmissions!
         Let me close out by warning those with telephones that have built in memories in them that even if they don’t have a certain person’s number entered in its permanent memory, the phone retains the last number you dialed. Therefore, if you were to call someone before your house was raided all they would have to do to find out who you last called would be to touch the “redial” key. As a protection, after you hang up from a private call dial another random number to put it in memory for nosy snoops to find.
         If you have any phone numbers in your personal phone book that you don’t want to fall into the wrong hands, code them in such a way that only you know how to decode them. For instance, let’s say the phone number is 123-4567. Code it by transposing some of the numbers and then, if not all of the phone numbers in your book are coded, put some mark by those that are to indicate to you its coded status. Transposing the two last numbers in this instance are written in your phone book as 123-4576 with the little dot being your indicator that it is coded.

         Several of the above tactics of vengeance were used by adult age Thomas who was arrested for some misspoken words the law describes as being “offensive in nature” that “a normal person would be offended.” Here again is another one of those penny wise pound foolish situations where a minor crime was inflated into a “major” offense with no thought of unintended consequences later down the line. These words in question were merely Thomas’ liberal views and opinions on homosexuality, including his admitted attraction to high-school age guys – despite the fact he is no longer a teenager himself – given to 16-year-old Michael Edward Reeves of Manhattan Beach who had inquired of them. His outspoken conservative thinking mother, Mrs. Margaret A. Reeves, who had given up custody of her son forcefully pursued the issue through the judicial system. Fortunately for Thomas – and in the long run, for her – she was not aware at the time, and probably still not to this day, of any mutually consenting touching or other contact between the two. What started out as a minor incident at most snowballed into one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever.
         First, being Thomas was employed, even at a low paying job, he was denied a public defender and told he had to hire his own attorney. Later at a sentencing hearing Thomas asked Torrance Municipal Court Judge William G. Willett, a Harry Anderson looking kind of guy (You remember Harry Anderson don’t you? He was the judge on NBC-TV’s Night Court.), to consider that being he had already spent over well 10 grand on attorney and other related fees, he has already been punished enough and no further sentence is needed. Not only wouldn’t he and the DA consider that, but that Willett wanted him to do time in jail on weekends that he would be required to pay for. Willett specifically said how he wants the defendant to pay the jail cost. This would amount to $150.00 per weekend for 20 weeks room and board in a local jail cell. (Local jails charge prisoners $50.00 per day or any portion of a day. Even though Thomas would be in 48 hours at a time it would be from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sunday, therefore 3 portions of a day. Boy, isn’t that a scamming way to screw someone over?) As if that wasn’t enough, he had to pay an $850.00 fine and do 320 hours community service work within the court’s jurisdiction. This really ticked off Thomas. This is enough to tick any normal person off. They just wanted to grab (bloodsuck) all they could. Somehow, although at this point he didn’t yet know how, he wasn’t going to let them get by with it. His expensive private attorney and the court plea bargained for the amount of jail time and community service he would be sentenced to. Then in the middle of open-court sentencing a DA, brand new to the case this day, spoke up and said he wanted a fine too. So now, as an uncaring afterthought Judge Willett sneakingly snuck in an $850.00 fine but kept the originally agreed upon jail time and community service time the same – a decision that ended up costing them a bundle. Thomas said to himself, “all they are is a bunch of bloodsuckers wanting to get all they can. How dare them cheat and sneak that fine by me. And how double dare they actually expect to get by with it! If they’re not going to consider the thousands I spent as part of the punishment, (actually it was the worst part of it) then I’m going to get it back at their expense or cost them 10 times more. They’re not going to get by with it. I’ll get my turn.” And with that statement he set out to make sure they, with their money-making machine, weren’t going to make any money off of him.
         When U.S. District Judge John G. Davies sentenced L.A.P.D. Officers Stacey Koon and Lawrence Powell in the Rodney King beating case he didn’t fine them because he acknowledged in open court they were broke. Willett knew Thomas too was broke so why shouldn’t he be given the same courtesy? Judge Davies considered other punishment suffered by the two rogue cops and hardship when he handed down his sentence. Why couldn’t Thomas have gotten the same courtesy from Willett? On Christmas Eve 1992 President Bush verbally expressed on national TV that he considered the lost savings spent to defend themselves as one reason he pardoned 6 Iran-Contra defendants. They had spent considerable sums of money defending their actions in court just like Thomas did. Why couldn’t he have gotten the same courtesy? The point is, every penal aggravation we have to put up with, especially costs out of our pockets, should be considered as part of the punishment. We shouldn’t settle for anything less. If they don’t consider your costs make sure you don’t absorb it. Bring it full circle – pass it back out to them.
         You know, there was a time when a person’s jail time from the day of arrest until the day he was sentenced wasn’t figured as part of the sentence to be credited to his time. That has long since changed, so should this – start considering every bit of suffering the defendant feels from day one at the moment of arrest until the last day of parole or probation and everything in-between.
         Like I referenced before with missing an important 50th anniversary celebration, some of the things we have to suffer are worse punishments than the “official” punishment handed down by a judge. Start considering them too, or they just may get fed back to you on a platter. Chomp, chomp! Get the message? We hope so. And I don’t mean to make that sound like a threat. There are just a lot of angry people out here that you need to be showing more consideration for.
         Due to lack of any more funds Thomas was unable to do the weekends and instead did the 40 days all at once in the Los Angeles County Jail. But to do so, Willett made this sentence 60 days, knowing he had to do that in order to get Thomas to do 40 days. But the catch is to do 40 out of 60 he has to work 8 hours a day. In the weekend 40 day deal it would have been 40 without any requirement to work. Shouldn’t 8 hours a day for 40 days (which equals 320 hours) have been taken off of the community service time then? Thomas thinks so! There should have been no community service. By the way, they had the nerve to charge Thomas to sign up to do the “volunteer” community service work, a cost of $15.00. This fee was not a part of the original plea agreement and should not have been imposed and it surely should have been deducted off of the $850.00 fine.
         What made it worse is that he had to drive over 30 miles in heavy traffic from the San Fernando Valley down to Manhattan Beach every day to do the community service work rather than in his own local neighborhood as most judges will allow. (Willett also ordered the community service has to be “hard labor” and not a sit down kind of work like clerical duties.) Thomas told Willett his financial difficulty relating to gas expenses on his old poor-condition low-mileage vehicle but that didn’t matter a bit. “I want the community where the crime took place to benefit,” was Willett’s sharp-ass response. But the so called “crime” didn’t even happen in that court’s jurisdiction, only the arrest did. You see, Michael and Thomas met in Hollywood in September 1984, one of the largest gay communities in America. Michael, who was staying at the Children’s Baptist Home in Inglewood where his mother had him put due to his misbehavior at home, was on a day pass from there and took a bus to Hollywood just to see a place he had never seen before. This is where the so called “crime” of sex talk – and on a later date, gentle mutual consenting touching they were unaware of – took place. And this is the community where the arrest should have taken place if any! NOT Manhattan Beach where the complaining mother lived, a mother who gave up custody at that.
         When Willett said he wanted the community “where the crime took place to benefit” from the community service Thomas said, “then let me do it in Hollywood, that won’t be as far to drive.” But no, that wasn’t good enough for Willett. Now that he knew the real location of the “crime” he changed his mind and said, “then I want the community where the arrest took place to benefit.” It meant nothing to him that the arrest shouldn’t have taken place in his jurisdiction at all to begin with! “O.K., be that way,” Thomas said to himself, “I’ll shift that around on you and say, ‘I want the community where I got screwed over to un-benefit. Let’s see how they’ll like that’.”
         Needless to say, that jurisdiction of the judicial system has a few upsets when people under surveillance get tipped off. For starters, its anyone’s guess how many surveillance cases have already been blown wide open, after who knows how many man hours were involved. They may have gotten $850.00 out of him, but he vicariously got it back in the fun he’s had. What William G. Willett, who I’ll refer to as Billy, did in this case was penny wise and pound foolish. Billy came out the goat (pardon the pun; it was intentional [get it – Billy goat]), although he has never admitted it, even when he was anonymously made aware of it in December 1988.
         (It’s noteworthy to mention that this jurisdiction was also made aware of his ongoing plans to continue tipping off other people under surveillance to help recoup the unnecessary losses he sustained during their abusive tactics. They too, like the Secret Service earlier with Lee, have offered no comment and not the least hint of an objection about his continuing to do them now or later down the line. Without any objection from any of the law-enforcement agencies that have been advised of this ongoing practice, it seems we have a free ride to continue this fun without any possibility of repercussions coming back on us. The best advise I guess I can give is, have fun, but still proceed with caution.)
         Ironically, the janitorial work Thomas was assigned to do at the National Guard Armory in Manhattan Beach on Bell Avenue left Tony Conti, the regular state-employed janitor Thomas worked for, free to type labels for his extensive private collection of adult pornographic video tapes. When Thomas did all the work Tony was once doing alone, this left him free to do his own “personal” paperwork.
         Thomas also, like others whose stories we report here, was a victim of attempted entrapment proceedings by police, in this case the Manhattan Beach police Department under the guidance of Detective Patricia Picker. Thomas and Michael had freely gone out on several other occasions in the next few weeks when he was able to get a day pass from the Home. On many other weekends, with Michael’s prompting, they talked on the phone and it was these ongoing conversations that led the Home’s staff to wonder who Michael was talking to so often. He previously expressed to Thomas how staff will “slam kids against the wall when they misbehave” so it can be guessed with some confidence that Michael was threatened in some way with punishment to tell all and quiet, shy, polite, and scared Michael obliged – but only to a degree; just enough to satisfy their pressing the issue but not enough to get Thomas in deep trouble. Michael had a delicate balancing act to perform and he did it well. He needed to lower his exposure to punishment for communicating with someone without permission while at the same time not violate the wonderful trust between the two friends.
         On the day of one of their get togethers police wired Michael up with a transmitter and told him to try to entice and entrap Thomas to speak sexually to him so they could catch a sexual solicitation “crime” in progress. (Picker even snickered in a self-satisfied way when she told Thomas that she told Michael to do this.) Here was where he had his delicate balancing act to perform. He had to do what he was told to do while at the same time tipping Thomas off so he wouldn’t say anything incriminating. And here he came through with flying colors. Only when during a consenting search of Thomas’ van did police find a prescription medicine that was not registered to him did they arrest him for that. (It was left behind in his van by someone he was previously out with on a date.) And then, because of that, he was also charged with soliciting Michael. Later, when the DA got the case he wouldn’t charge Thomas with the possession, but he did charge him for soliciting a sex act after learning of Thomas’ homosexuality and that he was sexually interested in other male students as early as his 10th grade days.
         What is so anger provoking to Thomas here is that the statute he was charged under (California Penal Code § 647a [which has now been renumbered to 647.6 PC]) includes teenagers soliciting opposite sex teenagers, yet they are never charged – even ones that do sexually interact with each other in a consenting way which is more illegal than mere solicitation. And law book cases, including one I quote below involving a child offender, verify this to be true. In the printed case; In re R. (1970) 83 Cal.Rptr. 671, 464 P.2d 127, 1 C.3d 855 it is quoted, “The words ‘every person’ within this section [647a] means that every person who annoys or molests any child under the age of 18 is a vagrant include a minor as well as an adult.”
         Rather than prosecute either consenting teenage partner, some are legally given free condoms, and if the girl gets pregnant she gets free medical care and treatment paid for by taxpayers. But for Thomas charged with only soliciting a sex act, he couldn’t even get a free attorney which he legally was entitled to with the meager income he was making, 6 bucks an hour. He had to hire an attorney at his expense with money he had to borrow from his parents. Why shouldn’t he get a free attorney like cops do when they are charged with a crime, like the four policemen who beat Rodney King did? If they can pay for all the attorneys representing the misbehaving cops in that case when they did a serious felony why shouldn’t they pay for Thomas’ one attorney when he did a petty misdemeanor?
         Another equally aggravating item, while not pertaining to Thomas on this case, but anger provoking nonetheless, and on this same subject is worth mentioning here. Why should defendants have a high bail imposed on them when cops, or rich prominent people, charged with serious crimes, even ones more serious than some we’ve done, get out on a low bail or even get an OR release. That is truly discriminatory, anger provoking, and something that should not ever again be tolerated!
         Why do the four black defendants charged in the beating of trucker Reginald Denny at the start of the L.A. riots on April 29, 1992 face higher charges and have a higher bail than the four white policemen who beat motorist Rodney King in a similar way? Should we tolerate discrimination like this any longer? All we have to do is speak out, act out, and fight back to not let anyone rip us off again and it won’t happen. We all learned in grade school about bullies; that they only pick on us if we don’t fight back. That’s all it takes folks – action, action, action!
         (By the way, on the subject of the riots [which, incidentally, are nothing more than a real life demonstration that when people aren’t treated fairly they will get back], soon after they were over a court official openly said on TV that due to the paperwork mess some people are getting looting convictions on their record that shouldn’t and others aren’t that should. And it seems they really expected the innocent victims to merely accept it as O.K. What is so awful is that even when officials acknowledge some are in fact innocent they go ahead and prosecute them anyway and leave it on their record. And they call us dangerous to society? Ya – right folks. This is where they need to be taught these actions won’t be tolerated any longer under any circumstances.)
         To show how unfair this kind of “sex” charge is to begin with, consider the kind of offensive language contained in some movies that people under 18 are legally allowed to see and hear, yet no one is prosecuted. 647a considers mere solicitation an offense because the phrasing is offensive to the person who hears it, yet 16-year-olds are exposed to more offensive legally permitted things in movies or even in school they can legally see or hear. And for that matter, MTV’s cartoon characters, Beavis and Butt-Head, aren’t so innocent of offensive language and little kids seem to be permitted to see and hear them on a regular basis.
         While on the subject of movies, try this on for size. In the 1981 movie Private Lessons starring Howard Hesseman, 15-year-old Eric Brown was sexually involved with the 25-year-old family maid played by Sylvia Kristel. If what Thomas did was so offensive then this movie should also be judged as such. After all, even though it had no naked scenes, it clearly showed the passion between the two consenting lovers in bed, in a tub, and elsewhere clearly on screen. And in another more recent movie, Rambling Rose, a boy, Lucas Haas, I believe to be 16-years-old was also involved with an older woman. Why doesn’t the talk of these two adults, let alone their consenting actions, violate the offensive part of 647a if Thomas’ talk does? And in the movie Poison Ivy, released in May 1992, actress Drew Barrymore, who was 17-years-old at the time (and surely 16 when it was made considering her birthday is 2-22-75 and the lag time between filming and release), made love with another person in a consenting way. Then, last but not least, in the 1994 movie Milk Money, a grown prostitute shows her breasts to a boy, advertised in promotional literature to be 12-years-old, and his two friends who could have been 13. She was offered and was given money to perform the deed.
         Or for that matter, how about the offensive kind of talk Thomas was forced to hear from both inmates and staff alike when he was jailed for using offensive language to Michael. Should anyone accept being punished by the judicial system for using the very same kind of language we get thrust into? After all, non-sexual language can be just as offensive, if not more so, than sexual language when cussing is involved. If the judicial system won’t protect us from such language, and worse yet even contribute to it, how dare they expect us to accept punishment for using it! And how dare they even arrest someone for something they wouldn’t protect him from! Shame, shame on them. If they are so concerned about sexual solicitation as an offense worthy of prosecution, then they best well be equally concerned when it is directed at us.
         And for that matter, how about other offensive indignities we as inmates are subjected to such as: being stripped naked in front of everyone else and searched into every body cavity and private parts; having to shower in front of everybody else, even officers of the opposite sex; and even getting sprayed with poisonous de-louse spray while getting booked into the county jail.
         If people can sue and get substantial monetary compensation from those responsible for allowing or causing sexual harassment then Thomas surely should expect compensation for what he’s been through. People have been awarded thousands of dollars in lawsuits for sustaining less emotional and psychological damage than he has throughout the years because of judicial-system improprieties. If a statute is to be enforced, then all who break it should be charged – surely those who actually do the act, even teenagers!
         To make this debacle more horrible, near the same time of Thomas’ incident with Michael, a woman police officer, Sharon Fischer, committed not only the very same act with a 16-year-old boy while on duty, but fondling was also involved – a more serious offense in the law books. As reported in the Daily News on March 13, 1987, her solicitation even involved love letters, a much more severe offense of 647a than mere talking as Michael said Thomas did. In the end she was only fired from the police department by Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and not criminally charged at all. Chief Gates gave the following reasons for her dismissal: “1) Improperly writing sexually suggestive letters to a minor, 2) Improperly telephoning a minor at his residence, 3) Improperly permitting a minor to fondle her breasts & buttocks, and 4) Maintaining an improper relationship with a minor” – a 16-year-old boy – while doing undercover work. To this day she remains fired and not prosecuted. How dare the judicial system expect Thomas to accept punishment for his deeds when they won’t hold one of their own responsible for worse deeds, in both behavior and language, with a boy of exactly the same age. She actually did the touching and as far as prosecutors knew, Thomas did not touch Michael in any sexual way.
         It’s not right to prosecute some for a charge and not another especially when that person’s offense was more serious. No one should stand for that, surely I don’t and neither was Thomas going to. Either all should be charged on a given penal code statute number or none. If anything, police officers should be more accountable to act in a professional manner while on duty, as this policewoman was. Right after the Rodney King beating incident then President Bush said, “law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law.” I believe we all have a responsibility to carry on his wishes here and I preach that freely. Sometimes laws are purposely left broadly worded so authorities can capriciously choose who they will get, and to what extent, if they really want to shaft somebody. This tactic was obviously followed here and should not ever be tolerated. If they are going to stretch laws into places they shouldn’t go, make sure they know the consequences of their actions. Make sure they know they’ve got another thing coming if they think we’re going to accept it sight unseen without a response back.
         Carrying this discrimination travesty further remember when the Lakewood High School Spur Posse sex scandal broke in March 1993. A female Deputy District Attorney went on TV and responded to questions why many other boys were not prosecuted. She said that even though sexual intercourse with a minor is a crime it is their policy to, “not prosecute when the willing participants are of the same or similar age and have a similar social experience in life.” So here we have acknowledged evidence that some sex crimes will be allowed while people only engaging in verbal sex talk will get screwed badly. Those who actually do a sex act should get prosecuted if Thomas, who was only accused of talking about doing a sex act, gets prosecuted and punished.
         Even though the two are separated by several years in age, they are very similar in social experience. Both are very quiet, shy, non-athletic, intellectual kinds of people who liked the same kinds of music, hobbies, and recreational activities. Michael sure didn’t have anything in common with the kids his own age at the Home who were mostly crude, rude, and loud, loud, loud – both with their mouths and their radios. He often expressed to Thomas how very distressing that is to him and that he doesn’t fit in with them. Most of the kids also happened to be black, and although neither Michael nor Thomas were prejudice, there is quite a cultural/life dissimilarity. When you are one of the few whites around – and a quiet type at that – this can surely lead to discomfort. Having been in similar living situations in custody Thomas could relate to this very well. They did have more in common than not. Now that should account for something.
         And then we have adult actor Rob Lowe caught taking pornographic video tapes while actually sexually interacting with a consenting 16-year-old girl (a much more serious violation of the law than what Thomas did) and receives barely a slap on the wrist as punishment (20 hours community service as reported in the Los Angeles Times on September 14, 1989).
         In August 1989 then Los Angeles County District Attorney Ira Reiner responded on national TV to Lowe getting a very minor punishment for his offense in relation to what others would get by saying that when judges see a typical normally law-abiding non-criminal come in front of them they see themselves in that person and are reluctant to punish him the same as a typical criminal. Reiner acknowledged it is easy to punish a petty thief to jail but not a white collar normal law-abiding business person who stole millions. I could hardly believe what I heard from him, but these are his true statements and such discrimination makes me truly mad. He basically admits here that there are 2 systems of justice, exactly the thing this work preaches against – and the thing we must not tolerate any longer. Of all the gall, to come out in the open and admit unfairness and not even have shame for it. They truly need to be taught a lesson. After hearing a statement like that Thomas should feel he’s even more owed, and I’m sure he does. I personally feel less sorry for non-violent revenge I’ve done in the past to even scores for judicial abuse or aggravations.
         And if prosecutors were not seeking jail or prison time for Hemet High School football coach Randy Brown (as mentioned by a prosecutor on TV) for arranging sexual liaisons between more than one underage football players and his wife, Kelly, why should Thomas for just discussing sexual activity with a similar age high schooler? Where is the fairness our country was founded upon? Is there any surprise when someone overreacts in retribution as Thomas ended up doing when authorities overreact on their actions beyond proper boundaries? I am appalled at the abject sexual discrimination inflicted upon Thomas in this case that no one should stand for. For the Browns, a stiff fine satisfied the prosecutor and court totally. Yet for Thomas, whose monetary expenses greatly exceeded theirs, that was not enough even though, as far as they knew, he never sexually interacted with Michael. He freely says he is truly not sorry for the vandalisms he did and is truly mad to this day. He says he really feels owed!!!
         One thing that is particularly extra angering to Thomas today now that the Michael Jackson deal broke in the media in 1993, is that Thomas shouldn’t have even been charged to begin with. In relation to Jackson’s investigation, police said that the statement from one 13-year-old boy alleging the two engaged in sexual activity was not enough to file criminal charges if there is no other evidence to substantiate his statement. Yet for Thomas, they charged him even though there was no evidence other than one 16-year-old’s statement, a statement that said he only asked for sex; something much less serious than Jackson was accused of by a younger boy. If more evidence is needed for him, then more evidence should also be needed for Thomas too, if fairness is to be upheld that is. After all, sexual activity with a 13-year-old raises the crime’s severity factor all the way up to the “serious felony” category while Thomas’ normally should remain in the “misdemeanor” category. Obviously fairness wasn’t upheld, and Thomas later acted accordingly; and after this bit of information he says he’s more glad than ever that he acted the way he did as far as the vandalism aspect of his conduct was concerned.
         All of this “criminal activity” of Thomas’ hinged on speech that was supposedly offensive to the “victim” hearing it, in this case Michael Reeves. Now if Michael was really offended by Thomas and really wanted him in trouble, he surely would have told of the in bed, non-intercourse, close, consensual, gentle, intimate kinds of touching & hand massaging activity they actually did do, rather than limiting his tattling to say he only asked for sex and touched only his leg. Clearly he was not an offended party – at least not offended by Thomas. He even picked up a nude girly magazine one day at a store to look at and he sure wasn’t offended by all he saw.
         It seems likely he didn’t like the pressure his mother, Margaret, put upon him though. Later he moved out from her as soon as he turned 18. Obviously, Thomas couldn’t disclose this interaction before due to the statute of limitations not expiring yet. But now that he doesn’t have that to worry about we can all see it does indicate who the real victims and perpetrators are in this case. It’s too bad Michael wasn’t free from pressure by his mother and the Children’s Baptist Home to express his honest wishes to authorities for Thomas’ leniency. Despite Thomas’ extreme anger with the judicial system he enthusiastically states he never did have any anger at Michael for his lack of bravery to stand up to his mother. He never initiated nor wished to complain to begin with and Thomas knows that. In fact, Michael’s purposely not taking the opportunity to get him in worse trouble, as bad as his mother wanted, despite repeated prodding and poking by her and police to do so, was probably an act of defiance against her wishes – his only way to silently disobey her. Thomas says he’s sure, knowing what he did about what Michael told him he’s been through, that did him more emotional good than anything else.
         It’s noteworthy to mention that besides moving out from under his mother’s roof as soon as he turned 18 and was legally able to, when they were going out in 1984, and he was 16, he wanted to move in with Thomas – that’s how bad he wanted to get away from the Children’s Baptist Home where his mother had him put in when she didn’t want him at home with her. Michael is not gay and has no sexual attraction at all to males. Despite that, he would have rather lived with Thomas where, between the two, they agreed to limit their activity to massaging each other and various other gentle touching mostly of a non-sexual nature, rather than live in the abusive Home any longer. (Thomas, by the way, talked Michael out of running away with him though.)
         Besides the physical abuse Michael suffered at the hands of staff members, he really was traumatized by the kind of inmate kids he had to live with. Like I said before, he is a very quiet, shy, non-athletic, intellectual kind of person, much like Thomas. And the kids he lived with were mostly crude, rude, and oh so loud in their many ways which was so very upsetting for him. Thomas could relate to that real well because when he was in custody before he felt the same kinds of distress at the inmate environment around him and he often expressed the same complaints to family members that saw him on visiting days. Often the worst part of doing time was the inmate-caused aggravations quieter kinds of people have to put up with. Clearly the two had a strong bond of friendship that neither wanted to end, but both knew that with the outside forces working against them they knew it would have to. Yes, Michael was abused – but was it by Thomas or was it by the Home for physical abuse, the judicial system for putting all this extra pressure on him, or by his mother Margaret? You know, she rejected him at a time in his life when he needed a parent so badly that he had to seek out parental support from total strangers and was even willing to consent to a degree of touching with someone he liked a lot but was not attracted to in a sexual way. I can only imagine how I would have felt if my loving parents would have rejected me when I was 16. I can only imagine how shy Michael at 16 felt. I know who the real guilty culprit is here – do you?
         It seems I’m covering this case a lot more than I originally intended but Thomas’ non-violent lashing back at the judicial system was quite unique and inventive. I want you to know how much anger provoking transpired in this minuscule case so you can better understand where his rage originated.
         Another point comes to mind. It’s also unfair to consider Michael a victim when he’s two years younger than the legal age of consent to engage in sexual activity, but then treat him as an adult and punish him as such if he were to do a serious crime. (A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows states to execute those as young as 16-years-old. According to USA Today September 28, 1994, page 11A; 21 states do allow it at age 16, 4 at age 17, and 12 at age 18. 13 states have no death penalty. In 1994 2/5 of juvenile judges polled by the National Law Journal would extend the death penalty to 14- and 15-year-olds. A sixth of them would even execute kids as young as 12.) Either treat all 16-year-olds as children in all cases as it pertains to the law or as adults in all cases. The judicial system shouldn’t flip-flop them back and forth for their benefit to use as they see fit. They can’t have it both ways. That is the real child abuse in this society! That is using somebody to gain one’s own advantage and that is absurd and unfair.
         Child advocates will come right out and say that children can’t give consent to have sex and that they are not responsible for it if it happens to them. Well then I ask, when a 12- or 13-year-old does a serious crime and everyone jumps on the band wagon and yells for their punishment of time in custody just like any other adult because they are “responsible” for their actions, why are they considered “responsible” for that, but not if they choose to engage in sexual activity with somebody? This double standard having it both ways ain’t right.
         They say a 16-year-old can’t legally give consent to do sex so having consensual sex is not a legal defense for someone charged with this “crime.” But then they turn around and let the 16-year-old give consent to have an abortion if she, under her free will, wants to have one – and she doesn’t even need her parent’s consent for it either. The November 5th, 1992 edition of the Los Angeles Times quoted a statement by Judge Jerry T. Lockett of Lake County, Florida. “If a minor is sufficiently mature such that the law has to accept her consent alone to an abortion, surely she may consent, as a matter of law and privacy, to the act which led to the necessity for the abortion, i.e., sexual intercourse.” At least some judicial people are waking up to fairer open-minded views. Let’s help wake others up.
         If their reasoning is that Thomas’ deed involved gay sex and the police woman’s did not, then how dare them further. 647a makes no distinction there. All who commit the offense are equally guilty, no matter the gender of the people involved. Either charge all of us, or none of us. They shouldn’t dare nit-pick who they’ll charge and who goes free at their whim. And surely they shouldn’t dare do it at Thomas’ expense and expect him to pay for their prejudicial selective persecutions. He wasn’t going to stand for any form of sexual-activity prejudice committed against him by anyone and no one should expect him to!
         The fact that not everyone is charged indicates they do see it as a minuscule kind of offense. Beyond that, if actually interacting in a mutual way is such a harmful deed to a younger partner Michael’s age as some seem to think, it would be illegal everywhere – but it isn’t. At some places it is perfectly legal for people of Thomas’ age to mutually sexually interact with opposite sex people Michael’s age, and in some locations – Washington D.C. for just one example where they liberalized their laws within this range in September 1993 – even same sex people Michael’s age. In May 1996 it became newsworthy talk show material when a teacher had legal sex with his 17-year-old student in Pahrump, Nevada where the age of consent is 16. He only faced moral trouble because it was a teacher/student affair, not because he broke a criminal age law. And they expect Thomas to pay so much for doing so little – no way!!! He shouldn’t have to put up with a double standard and he can’t see how they have the audacity to expect him to. Fairness is not an adjustable concept. It does not fluctuate based upon a person’s legal status (whether he’s free or in custody) or degree of powerlessness.
         Beyond any of that, the punishing part that is so bad is the part they don’t even consider as punishment – the loss of Thomas hard earned money. The county jail and community service time he did was long over. He no longer felt any lingering bad effects from that. But the financial loss continues – he’s still without his money – and it even increases as the amount he loses with lost interest increases.
         To aggravate the situation further, the DA filed an extra third count that according to the statute’s wording and the police-recorded entrapment tape, prove he was not guilty of that one. His words to Michael did not violate the statute in that count three. Michael initiated sex talk because of police prodding and Thomas did not carry it through. He actually changed the subject in mid conversation to something else. You’ll recall, he actually tipped Thomas off so he wouldn’t say anything incriminating. The other two counts were for soliciting Michael on two occasions when they went out and were statutorily valid. Shouldn’t Michael be the guilty party on count three rather than Thomas? Hmmm.
         Actually, the case should have been handled out of the court prosecuting Hollywood committed crimes, because as I said before, this is where the two originally met and where Thomas originally asked for intimate relations (and where they did mutually interact once). This way the whole situation could have been kept in the proper context of the more sexually-lenient Hollywood environment and treated as such. While free awaiting trial on this case Thomas called the Hollywood substation of the Los Angeles Police Department out of jealously on a man sexually interacting with a 16-year-old male prostitute and they weren’t concerned as long as it was consenting. The officer he talked to didn’t even want the man’s license number when he offered it to him. Thomas was angry and lied and said the man is keeping the boy out of school so they can be together. He didn’t know if that part was true or not, but even at that, the officer was not interested in taking a complaint. This is the agency that should have handled Thomas’ interaction with Michael if anyone was going to. NOT Manhattan Beach where the complaining mother lived, a mother who gave up custody at that. Hollywood is where his “crime” of solicitation (which they were aware of) took place and where Michael and him actually did interact with each other once (which they weren’t aware of at the time). Maybe the Torrance DA knew the Hollywood area was more lenient about such matters and figured they could stick it to him more if they handled it. They should have kept their noses out of it and let the proper jurisdiction handle it. The Manhattan Beach Police Department police report even mentions his contacts with Michael were outside their jurisdiction. The only reason Manhattan Beach PD got involved was because that’s where Mrs. Reeves lived. But she wasn’t the “victim” and Michael didn’t even live with her. Nor did he live in that jurisdiction. He lived in Inglewood. (If they wanted to be so righteous about prosecuting crime why wouldn’t they even look into the claim Thomas relayed to them that Michael told him that when kids misbehaved at the Children’s Baptist Home they would get “slammed against the wall”? The November 20, 1994 edition of The Arizona Republic made it front page news when they revealed abuse worse than slamming kids against walls and resulting coverups in Arizona’s juvenile facilities. Is Inglewood and Manhattan Beach guilty of a cover up too? Hmmm.) As far as Thomas is concerned they owe him big time!!!
         In Chapter 4 we’re going to cover how easy a person on probation or parole can get violated and returned to custody when he or she hasn’t done even anything wrong. That happened here. Thomas was concerned for 16-year-old Michael’s emotional well being. He knew good ol’ mother Margaret was responsible for some of her son’s distress and run away problems. Because of her, he was placed in a mildly abusive living environment where punishments sometimes consisted of unnecessary physical contact. Worse yet, he was emotionally suffering the rejection of his mother who did not want him to live with her. With the extreme anger Thomas had for the overreactions of Margaret to his slip of the tongue, he felt a good written tongue lashing to her was the only thing that would vent some of this rage and prevent some other very undesirable and detrimental kinds of vengeance from being directed towards her later on.
         After politely apologizing to her in a 10-page single-spaced pencil written letter from jail for his slip of the tongue, he criticized and condemned her for some of her actions as a parent for contributing to mild forms of abuse more detrimental than his misspoken words ever should have been considered. Among other things he said, “Rather than get revenge in illegal & inappropriate ways as I would have done in my younger days I find it better to vent off this steam in a legal & socially acceptable manner.” Other statements included, “You have a lot of nerve because some things you did added to his emotional problems more than anything I ever did.…you failed as a mother so bad he had to practically beg total strangers for parental closeness. He already knew you didn’t want him when he was bad. But that’s when he needed you the most. You deserted him. You don’t think that left emotional scars on him? If you ask me I think it takes a lot of nerve to blame me for things when you did much worse. You wouldn’t show your love when he needed it but you sure condemn me when I showed some love, kindness, & positive thoughts. You really owe me an apology but you probably won’t be woman enough to admit your wrongs. To further add to the problem when my attorneys investigating lady interviewed you & Michael on the phone she could hear you coaxing Michael as to what to say. In other words those were your words not Michael’s we heard from him. You should have kept your mouth out of it. We already had your statement, we wanted Michael’s unbiased words. [If she only knew at the time how Michael, by tipping me off to the tape-recorded set up, didn’t totally bow to her and the police’s every whim. He retained some dignity. He didn’t give in totally to their pressures.] You have no business putting pressure on him what to say. It’s more positive when a person can and should be allowed to express his own views. Don’t add to his emotional problems. Don’t pressure the boy. He can speak for himself. And you have the nerve to say I pressured him.…All these things were on my mind when I’d see you in court giving me such a condemning and dirty look. Who really did more harm to Michael? Who betrayed & deserted him? Who pressured him? I just hope Michael can survive the rest of his childhood in spite of you.…I’ll close by saying I will not attempt to call Michael as per a probation requirement but I do wish him well. I hope he can get over some of his problems & I hope you & the [Children’s Baptist] home haven’t done irreversible damage. You may find it hard to believe but I’ve seen it happen to others. He needs a strong, loving, & openminded parent to let him grow into the person he can be. It’s not to late. The first step should be to get him out of that home if he’s not yet. Young impressionable people come out of a place like this hardened & changed in some bad ways. You have to make the step. It’s been a pleasure giving you a piece of my mind. I hope it can be of benefit to you.”
         It should be mentioned that despite Thomas telling Detective Picker, the court & DA, and Mrs. Reeves about the Inglewood Children’s Baptist Home physical abuse, no one apparently followed up on it. Who then are the real child abusers? Those who do it; those who know about it and do nothing to stop it; or both? I say both! This non-threatening but harshly worded letter was sent to her in October 1985. Isn’t it about time someone does something about it? Shouldn’t the Home answer up to somebody? They’re in Inglewood, California. Anyone can contact them for answers.
         Apparently Mrs. Reeves couldn’t accept the real truth and realize the letter’s true purpose was to vent emotional anger as a safety valve in order to prevent a response not so benign on Thomas’ part. Or maybe she did realize it all along, but chose to use that as an excuse to try to get Thomas in worse trouble so she could justify to herself not having to accept the truth he told her about her being a bad mother. Possibly the only way she could prove her actions right, as far as what she did to Michael, was to prove Thomas was wrong by writing to her.
         In any event the letter was not meant to be a threat as she tried to claim. She had a lot of nerve to even make that claim after telling Thomas’ attorney months earlier that he should be hanged for speaking to Michael as he did. Hanging is murder, and that’s violence in my book. Isn’t it in yours?
         Rather than see the wisdom of that and learning by it and trying to correct the situation, she tried to get Thomas in trouble for writing to her which was not against any probation regulations. Maybe she thought she could clear her own guilty conscience, which she surely should have had, for what she did to Michael. Thomas was only prohibited from communicating with Michael, who didn’t even live at her house where he sent the letter. According to Detective Picker, Mrs. Reeves went to her to complain about the letter. Picker told her that she didn’t see a threat in it and sent her to Thomas’ probation officer. But he didn’t have a probation officer because he was on unsupervised “summary” probation. Mrs. Reeves then went to the court clerk in order to file a complaint directly to Judge Willett. Knowing she obviously couldn’t do it legally, she apparently figured she had to lie in order to try to get Judge Willett to listen to her. To accomplish her goal she needed to lie twice about Thomas’ behavior in a slanderous way as defined in Penal Code § 258 and even perjure herself, another crime as defined in Penal Code § 118. She signed an official Declaration of Probation Violation document declaring under penalty of perjury that what she is saying is true and correct. This probably was suppose to clear her conscious that she is not guilty of doing any emotional harm to Michael. She couldn’t accept any of the guilt for rejecting her own son at a precarious time in his life and lied to put all the blame on Thomas. They should have looked into the abuse afflicted by the Home rather than seeming so concerned that Thomas alone was responsible for “abusing” Michael. In this narrow-mindedness, they allowed Mrs. Reeves to slither away from accepting any form of accountability pertaining to Michael’s emotional problems.
         What got Thomas so much more antagonized was that instead of Willett checking the facts first (in that he did not prohibit Thomas from contacting her as she claimed in both a typed letter personally to Judge Willett and her sworn Declaration), as he should have done, he just up and puts a warrant out for Thomas’ arrest. (Thomas purposely held up sending the letter to a day so she would be sure to get it early in the week when Michael, who is occasionally home with her on a weekend day pass, would not be there at the time. He made sure he abided by the probation requirement in effect which only prohibited contacting Michael, not her.) Now he had to put up $2,500.00 bail to get out of jail pending a probation violation hearing. Ironically, on the original charge he was let out without posting any bail and never missed any court appearance dates. In the process, he lost 3 days off work for court appearances and had to pay Public Defender costs (Willett reluctantly appointed one when he told the court he had no money left) even though he was found legally not in the wrong for writing her. Worse, Willett spoke harshly as if Thomas had done something wrong. He apparently wasn’t sharp enough to realize that letter was necessary to vent off steam to prevent less appropriate behavior from being directed towards Mrs. Reeves. Judge Willett was pissed he couldn’t stick it to Thomas. After he read in the file on the day of his hearing that he was only prohibited from contacting Michael, he insisted on getting the court transcript to see if he verbally said to not contact her too. And when he found he had not, and then couldn’t get Thomas, he was quite obviously not happy. And when he found he had not, and then couldn’t violate Thomas, he was quite obviously not happy. That insistence about getting the unnecessary transcript was responsible for costing that extra 3rd day off work mentioned above.
         Therapists realize the importance of verbally confronting someone who has done them wrong and how throwing the extra baggage of disgust back on their doorstep is a very cleansing form of therapy. One can only carry so much baggage before you have to unload it. (And believe me, this book unloads a lot of mine!) Thomas didn’t believe in sweeping strong feelings under the table, especially when they can pop up somewhere else and cause a lot of damage. He had a lot of anger over this case and he needed to confront the main perpetrator. Thomas successfully used this technique in the past to other misbehaving judicial personnel and in all cases it lowered the chance that less appropriate reactions could bubble to the surface. Although on the most serious violations, his reactions were not lowered within legal bounds of venting, his reactions still came closer to that boundary.
         Before the second verdicts were announced in the Rodney King case, people were told to verbally express their anger if the results are not what they hoped for rather than do violence and vandalism as they did the first time. Even at the first verdicts then Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, in his wisdom, realized how the community needed to vent off steam after the case was over. And at that time then Police Chief Gates acknowledged how people need to channel their anger in a right way. This led to their strong recommendation to vent it out in a verbal and orderly way. Why couldn’t Willett just have let Thomas vent it out?
         That’s what he did in his letter to Mrs. Reeves and he should have been complimented, NOT condemned. I’d bet if a hard-core gang banger did that rather than do a drive-by shooting to alleviate an anger he would be complimented and highly praised. Surely, Thomas shouldn’t have been cost money out of his pocket for choosing this benign method of alleviating an anger, an anger that was very legitimate to have. His verbal tongue lashing letter was merely a therapeutic way to vent off steam in a slow way, a safety valve so to speak, to prevent something of a more explosive nature in a more hostile way from coming to the surface. That’s really all there was to it – a way to put closure to the situation and bring it to completion. It was not a threat, it was the opposite of a threat, a preventative action. A very necessary preventative action. He was doing a long slow burn and he was worried that at some point the anger would just come out. It’s too bad Judge Willett didn’t understand this. He, if anyone, should realize what it could prevent. Boy, speaking of coming out a goat; this takes the cake. This is the most classic case of goatness I’ve ever heard about up to this time.
         Knowing Mrs. Reeves isn’t too bright Thomas could sort of overlook her in a small way, but Judge Willett is highly educated. He should have known better. It’s too bad they couldn’t listen to his whispered complaints and criticism. Instead they had to hear the shouts from hundreds of people who later got their cars vandalized as detailed below.
         Mrs. Reeves’ crime of perjury was worse than Thomas’ original sexual words to Michael yet she was never charged or even reprimanded in any way. Thomas was once punished by another judge years earlier when he made perjured statements and that judge expressed his disgust about Thomas’ lying. So why shouldn’t Mrs. Reeves have been punished just the same? Once again, Thomas became a “double-standard” victim.
         In the end, Thomas – the person in the right – was charged court costs; he had to pay for the Public Defender. THEY SCREWED UP. She lied, they never charged her, and Judge Willett didn’t check the facts first. If he had, all this would have been avoided. Rather than up and put a warrant out on Thomas when he read her complaining document, signed under penalty of perjury, he could have easily checked the file to see she was in error. Rather than do his job properly, they all ended up going through all this, and after their bloodsucking attitude got all his money before, now they wanted more. Thomas was ordered to pay the $48.00 public defender fees for Judge Willett’s screw up. That should have been up to him. Thomas has had to pay when he’s screwed up before – so should Willett have had to!!! Losers in civil cases pay the winners’ expenses. Thomas was the winner here – the person in the right. That should have been up to them and her to pay! I guess the opportunity to get some more money shut Willett’s eyes to what was the proper thing to do.
         Why should Thomas have to pay for the use of an attorney that is suppose to be provided for free to those who can’t afford one when illegal aliens, who have no business even being here to begin with, don’t have to pay a thing for doctor or hospital care for all the extra babies they keep having, even when they can’t afford the ones they already have, which they’re even getting free care for also? Here Thomas’ actions of writing were legal. Why should he have to pay? Those who are illegal don’t get cost a thing! Why? Why? Why? He’s a bottom line oriented person – He wants HIS money back!!!
         After suffering so many unfair, improper, and unnecessary abuses and monetary loses over the years by various members of the judicial system this action by Willett was the straw that broke the camel’s back and led to the vandalisms listed below. Thomas was mad about losing HIS money he, as an innocent victim, shouldn’t have lost, and he wanted to cost other innocent people and make them mad in return. He wanted to violate other innocent people’s property as his was violated. He says that for that he is not sorry at all even though he said so at the time to appease judicial personnel and possibly lower the punishment he could receive. The shock should be not that he responded in an extreme way to these violations, but that they have the nerve and audacity to actually do these things and then expect us – the defendants – to just accept them as if it’s the normal thing to do. That is the shocking thing – and the shameful thing! It is not normal! And it won’t be tolerated! And there are a lot of VOCAL members who concur.
         The thing he is very sorry for though is the minor injuries that happened to a few people when some of the overspray mist blew onto their skin from the spray bottle he used to vandalize the vehicles. His MO is one of a non-violent property offender (revenge tactics that merely cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate others as a response to violations), not someone to injure others – that is not his way, despite the fact DA Lee Harris later put more emphasis on this part of his behavior. We’ll cover the details in our next part of the story below. Thomas is also sorry he didn’t let the car splashing victims know who really should be blamed for his responding and why. Who really are the misbehaving culprits. He truly wishes he would have made the real guilty culprits get a ton of bad media coverage and a ton of complaints from car splash victims.
         There is one thing he wants to set the record straight on though; no, it wasn’t just a $48.00 fee that led to an estimated half a million dollars in vandalism of cars. That was just the final straw. Every other impropriety about this case which has already been addressed, along with others that had been committed against him, was already brewing. Being pressured out of this 48 bucks just raised the flame a notch higher and the tea kettle burst. Let that be a lesson to those prone to misbehaving – keep the flame low.
         One can only imagine what would have happened if Judge Willett had gotten a wild hair up his ass and sentenced Thomas anyway even though there was no real legitimate violation. Mrs. Reeves probably wishes he had, but that’s only because she’s not bright enough to realize she’s better off the way it happened.
         As it turned out, her own handwriting convicted her without a doubt of the second lie. A note in her handwriting turned over to police and included in the original police report, which she apparently forgot about, verified that. She was keeping a record of the times Thomas called her house and talked to a visiting Michael. In one notation she indicated that, “asked home address, gave it,” meaning that Thomas asked Michael for the home address and was given it. In her complaining letter to the court claiming a violation of probation had taken place she said, “I don’t know how he got my address, because Michael didn’t give it to him!” By all rights she should have been arrested and charged. If that would have been any of us ex-offenders we surely would have been. In the least Willett could have reprimanded her.
         Willett’s biggest sin was at the time it came to pay court costs for Thomas’ reluctantly appointed Public Defender. $48.00 was the damages this innocent victim of this woman’s malicious lies was ordered to pay. And he had to pay it too because it would have been a real legitimate violation of probation if he didn’t. But it didn’t end there. They weren’t getting by with this.
         He had already cut 40 telephone receiver wires from the yellow emergency telephones along the freeway on his way to do the community service for 40 days along with the three elevator phones from the Torrance courthouse in order to cost them at least a small part of what they cost him, but now with all their extra bloodsucking attitude that wasn’t enough.
         (Another defendant/victim of Willetts made to drive many miles to do cleanup at the beach for 40 days – probably because Willett lives near the beach and wants it clean when he uses it – rather than do community service in his own neighborhood made a point of dumping 40 bags of his own trash onto the area’s beaches just to make up for what he cleaned up that he shouldn’t have had to in this area.)
         Another thing he thought of doing was what another antagonized victim of sex laws told him he once did. To give kids ideas that regular adults don’t like and is an opposite of what they want kids to know, he put little stick on notices up on light poles etc. around numerous schools that kids can make money by doing sex with others willing to pay for it by going down along Santa Monica Blvd. in Hollywood and West Hollywood. And it worked too. For awhile the Boulevard had a higher than average number of both male and female teenage prostitutes. He let those who were extra picky about his sexual activities know what he did and all the while hoping they didn’t like it.
         Because they took the prescription medicine from him (which is a chemical) and didn’t give it back, one way to revenge that theft could have been – if he would have thought of it at the time – to put fertile Fruit Flies in the traps authorities have set out in neighborhoods to see if spraying is needed in those areas. Because they stole a chemical from him (even though he never paid for it, it was the principle of it) he could have cost them in return by making them think these pests have spread to a larger area and then they would have to use their chemicals (which would have cost them) to spray areas that really didn’t need it. Boy, isn’t that inventive. A+ on that one! Wonder if anybody has done it?
         The thing is, that wasn’t enough for Thomas, not for what they did to him. He filled a plastic squirt bottle, the kind used to spray house plants and obtainable at any garden supply stores, with battery acid (diluted sulfuric acid) which, as I said before, can be purchased from auto supply stores. Adjusting the nozzle properly will squirt a stream of spray 10 feet or so instead of spray out a mist as is used for plant watering. Battery acid can also be purchased from places that rebuild car batteries. Private people legitimately use it when they want to rejuvenate an old battery. They drain out the old acid and refill with the new. Some have said it may be necessary to buy a car battery if acid by itself in a container is hard to find. It’s a little more expensive that way but the fun of causing anger in others outweighs the purchase price.
         Thomas drove through the employee’s parking lot of the courthouse and squirted every nice car there. Just a few drops, which looks like water drops innocently sitting on the surface, will etch into the paint causing several hundred dollars damage, requiring a total repaint job. It is especially etching on warm sunny days. By just pointing out the window this kind of vandalism can silently be done by merely driving by. If one is careless and people are standing nearby, overspray mist could splash on them resulting in injury. Early on this booklet firmly dissuades any kind of assaultive behavior. With no one around this is merely vandalism, still a crime of course, and in this case – a costly one.
         Another way to accomplish this deed is to fill a small plastic eye dropper or nose drops kind of bottle with the acid and merely walk by the new looking vehicles one wants to do. New car lots are great targets, especially before employees arrive for work. This method was done by Snake, Mondo, and Danny – three characters I became acquainted with back in the summer of ’93, and is detailed more thoroughly in my other book; Fedbuster: The Southern California Wildfires of ’93.
         For those who have driven down streets shooting BB guns at car windows and closed business windows late at night will appreciate this kind of vandalistic fun. It can be a lot quieter and therefore they won’t be as apt to get attention drawn to themselves.
         After spreading out into outlying areas, what started out as an unfair $48.00 charge ended up costing over $480,000.00 in damages. In my 1988 sample draft I said, “Quite extreme, but if anything positive comes out of it, it will be that Judge Billy will be a little more professional and fair in his dealings with like kinds of inclined defendants in the future.” Unfortunately, that statement is apparently not true. He was made aware of his improper deeds as itemized above along with the resulting lashing out. He did not respond in any way to indicate he will be more cautious in the future and he offered no apology for his misconduct. It is too bad those numerous people who got their cars sprayed did not know of Willett’s misdeeds as the real cause of their spotted paint jobs.
         Counterfeiter Lee also partook in this activity at the same time on his delivery route out of anger at the time Secret Service agents tore up his house and bedroom as we outlined above. You’ll recall, Special Agent Michael C. Tarr from the Los Angeles Field Office was in charged of his troop of vandalizing, thieving, and rude agents that day.
         Some have said this would be an ideal revenge when a law-enforcement agency improperly vandalizes a house in an otherwise “legally” conducted search with a warrant and traditional requests for compensation fall on deaf ears.

         ANYTIME someone innocent is dragged through the judicial system unfairly, in anyway, whether because of incompetence or spite on the part of some law enforcement or court authority, they should be made to pay the person’s attorney, if he had to hire one, and any other expenses incurred, including emotional aggravation. This should also include a lying authority which is also a form of abuse. In fact, even lying or any form of minor unethical practice on the part of an official should not be forgotten and dealt with with proper documentation back to the perpetrator and his or her superiors. Those who are inclined towards revenge might be apt to be quite creative in establishing one of the methods of pay back reported here or even something else entirely new (hint, hint – check out the internet.)
         If authorities refuse to accept responsibility for expenses they cause, some people may be inclined to observe what one monkeywrencher calls the 10 times rule. Cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate them 10 times more than they cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate us. (After all, that’s what they do to us. Their punishments are often way beyond what we did when you take everything into consideration like our money spent and unnecessary aggravations we suffer that weren’t pronounced by the judge as part of the sentence.) Increasingly, some of us are operating under the premise that if they don’t care if they drain us of our finances, we won’t care if we drain others of some of theirs. We just want to pass costs back to some others. Extreme Revenger is a term I coined for those who follow the 10 times rule. You can also use Extreme Monkeywrencher, it’s O.K. with me. I like that one too. Terms aren’t that important, its the goals they accomplish!
         Sometimes a prosecutor will go all out to win a conviction, even though he or she knows the person isn’t guilty, just so they can “earn” a conviction on their “score card” and claim a victory. They may even gain political momentum in the process of their shenanigans. This gives them “brownie points” for their supervisors to see and that’s what they really want. This is the ultimate form of abuse – the ultimate injustice committed against anyone. 60 Minutes exposed some of these practices in a March 1989 episode. They reported how known unreliable inmate snitches are used in big cases to testify on individuals they want convicted at any cost. More than a year after this exposé, the Los Angeles County Grand Jury sharply criticized the District Attorney’s office and the Sheriff’s Department for tolerating suspected perjury from snitches and rewarding them for their cooperation with leniency on charges they are facing. My question is, when they found out about this travesty, why didn’t we see all those guilty deputy district attorneys get prosecuted – and punished? This should make as much news as when a heinous serial criminal is captured. I’ll bet those guilty DAs are still on the job. Whenever they use unreliable information from an unreliable source to convict someone to “win” a conviction and make themselves look good and their job easier they need to be made to suffer in the severest way possible. They should do the same amount of time that the innocent person they tried to set up would have done in prison – and not at some easy-to-do-time minimum custody camp either. (According to 60 Minutes July 26, 1998 episode it’s still happening. Grrr!)
         The July 19, 1994 edition of USA Today even did a story on this and said how “…prosecutors – knowingly or unknowingly – relied on fabricated, mishandled or tampered evidence to convict the innocent….” (page 1A). “Faking or lying about evidence is not out of the ordinary at all,” says James Starrs, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in forensic science. “There are so many things of this kind, I’m horrified.” (page 2A). Our system of justice can’t be left in the hands of criminals like this. It demands everyone’s effort to find the truth – and we shouldn’t settle for anything less.
         These are classic examples of why we shouldn’t treat others fairly when we are not treated fairly by others, especially those in a position of power that are suppose to know better. What is so anger provoking is they will take the word of these snitches as gospel truth even though they are known criminals, but if we have a previous conviction on our record and are testifying on our own behalf for a new case our word is “impeached,” meaning we are a less reliable witness and our word is not as gospel. Lee was a victim of this tactic when Rappe “impeached” his credibility so his personal testimony was to be given less weight. If being a past criminal automatically makes his word less trustworthy, shouldn’t a criminal snitch’s be judged less trustworthy? Should his be given as much weight as a non-criminal person’s? If Mrs. Reeves, being typically a law-abiding person, was called to testify in a future case against someone do you even think a defense attorney would be allowed by the prosecution and judge to bring up her past perjury in order to impeach her truthfulness? Hmmm. Whoever said justice does not rule with a double standard must have had one too many. Actually more than one, don’t you think? The litmus test of a person’s probable truthfulness should be his or her past record of truthfulness, not his or her past criminal record. A criminal isn’t automatically a liar, and a non-criminal isn’t automatically a truthful person. Mark Twain once said “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.” But the truth has a way of catching up, sooner or later. And that, as Rush Limbaugh might say, is the way things ought to be. Let’s see to it it is. Act UP! Do you finally begin to see why we have to take some imaginative steps in order to level the playing field? All together now boys and girls (sung to the theme song from the Mickey Mouse Club), M O N-K E Y  W R E N C H. It works for me! (It may not rhyme, but it works. : - ) )

         More than a few wicked malefactors will even know a person is not guilty of all the elements of a crime necessary to sustain a legitimate conviction when they prompt him or her to plead guilty anyway, sometimes under threat of some higher charges they know are even less valid. That offense was committed against Thomas after he was arrested in July 1986 for splashing the acid on cars. As it turned out, his own privately retained attorney paid for by his parents, John Patrick Maginnis, one of the attorneys handling Antoine Miller in the Reginald Denny beating case is a guilty culprit of this offense.
         I know several of the most politically-active VOCAL members in prison who had been victimized by this tactic were seeing to it there is a considerable impact on the judicial system in one way or another. “And they shall live with what they have created and they shall find no redemption in laying guilt at an innocent man’s door.” We are the violators that violators have produced. I too have been a victim of this horrendous practice and am very irate and vocal when speaking on this subject. When they threaten someone to plead guilty – or even no contest, which still “wins” them a conviction – to something statute says they are not guilty of it is nothing less than state-sanctioned extortion. Make sure they know that and are treated as extortioners are treated. Let’s turn those “brownie points” into pie on the face for our guilty culprits. This is especially needed for those scoundrels who do whatever is necessary to further their careers and make themselves look good. Things like this set a very dangerous precedent. These are the dangerous people in our society. Make sure they don’t get rewarded for their aggression. I remember when President Bush addressed the nation about the invasion of Kuwait. When he told us that, “aggression will not be rewarded” this brought applause from a majority of Americans. The thing is, stopping any form of aggression should be applauded, whether it be an invading army; or an invading prosecutor. Open the floodgates, bring the offenders to their heels, ram it down their throats. Wage a campaign against abuse of all kinds.
         A May 1990 episode of Geraldo also dealt with overly aggressive prosecutors and police who connive to convict a person they know is not guilty. Experts on judicial-system practices acknowledged incidents such as these are happening and people are being left bitter, angry, and feeling abused. They clearly say prosecutors and others should be held in the loop of accountability. Doctors are, by way of malpractice lawsuits when they screw up. They’re not immune. Why can’t we sue these wicked judicial malefactors? Why should they have the luxury of immunity? Why shouldn’t we get the defense attorneys we hired paid for by them? Why don’t we get paid for the time we did in jail when we couldn’t bail out? We cannot agree more. Unfortunately, no mention was made to the consequences their actions sometimes bring about. That is where this work picks up the ball – where they left off. Together we can depend on our own resources to hold them accountable. Just make sure they understand they can’t do these things and expect to slither off to gloat in a victory. Maybe members of a group like VOCAL could publish these unindicted criminals’ activities along with their home addresses for distribution among the county jails and courthouses for defendants attending court proceedings from the streets. Maybe they can be picketed at their homes like anti-abortion people do to doctors that perform abortions. Our goals are the same. They try to get the doctors to stop doing abortions, we try get the abusive judicial person to cease their wrong activities and straighten up. If they knew their addresses were out and about maybe they would be more careful. I sure wouldn’t want my address known to someone I screwed over.
         (As an added bonus to readers of this book: I will compile, alphabetize, and categorize by offense nature a list of any misbehaving people’s names and addresses that are sent to me by you folks, and send them out on a periodic basis, as enough new ones come in, for free if you send me a self-addressed-stamped-envelope in advance. I have no addresses now. If you want any you all be the road dogs and scrounge them up so I can get them all back out to ya all. O.K.? I can see them all sniveling about this. But hey, they do it to released ex-sex offenders. In order to keep tabs on them and prompt them to not misbehave they notify everyone of their offenses along with their whereabouts. And it’s even up on the internet for the entire world to see. Is our method, with another variety of offenders, any different? I’ll be talking about that Megan’s Law crap later on so stand by for important information about it.)
         A November 1990 episode of 60 Minutes further addressed the issue of being illegally set up by lying police. They told of police in Oakland, California planting drugs on people to make arrests, stealing personal money, and beating people all because of a quota system to keep their jobs. Interviewed cops admitted these things and even of lying in court to back up their fellow cops. It has now been exposed and the law is dealing with it, but who knows how long it was building up to this point. The thing is though, it went on as long as it did because we victims let it happen. If the victims revenged each incident there surely would have been a public outcry to stop it or else. And public outcries do get results. The Rodney King beating cops would have never faced a second trial if there wouldn’t have been pressure on the higher ups to get some justice. Even those of us lower down on the judicial totem pole aren’t apt to face federal charges after we’re found not guilty in a state court.
         (Actually, as much as I wanted to see the cops get convicted, the second trial really wasn’t proper after they were found not guilty the first time around. But they wanted a conviction so bad they were willing to overlook that in order to make up for the wrong decision at the first trial. This was a case of where two wrongs did make a right. The not guilty in the first trial was wrong and the guilty in the second one was wrong. But being found guilty there made up for the wrong decision in the first one – two wrongs made a right. It was a dirty tactic, and something I would classify as abuse if it were to happen to me, but it shows of the over amount of power they have if they really want to get somebody at any cost. This time it worked to correct the wrong decision in the beginning, but remember, it only happened because of public outcry. That was the key. Now if our wrong monkeywrench behavior as a response to their wrong original behavior gets a wrong changed into a right is it then O.K.? Hmmm.)
         And it’s just as deceitful when police are too quick to stop looking for a more valid reason for an offense or the true guilty party when they have one in custody that seems to fit close enough to be able to convict “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As long as they can clean up the books with the person they’ve got that satisfies them. The October 23th, 1993 edition of Fox’s Front Page reported on a forensics “expert” falsifying blood samples and other evidence in rape and murder trials to link the most likely person police merely think did it. How many innocent victims have gotten stuck on something of this nature when police were too lazy and/or careless – or worse yet, purposely botched – to be sure the one they had was the real guilty party? Guilty officers who hang it on somebody and go no further should be made to do the exact same amount of time in prison – and at the same prison – that the innocent person spent before the mistake was corrected and he or she was released. And when they purposely falsify something that’s when they really need to be slammed down hard!
         All this discussion about lying law-enforcement personnel brings to mind a discussion I had with some detective about my criminal vindictiveness. Being a conservative Christian he was quoting Biblical passages about forgiveness and some stuff like that. I then decided to check out the Bible for myself and here’s what I found quoted exactly as they are written in the Authorized King James Version in relation to lying and being a false witness. The first one is one of the Ten Commandments:

         “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” –Exodus 20:16
         “THOU shalt not raise a false report:…Keep thee far from a false matter;” –Exodus 23:1, 7
         “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.” –Leviticus 24:19-20
         In Deuteronomy 19:15-21 we read where the false witness will have done to him what he wanted to do to the one he lied on.
         “…a lying tongue is but for a moment.” –Proverbs 12:19
         “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.” –Proverbs 12:22
         “A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.” –Proverbs 17:4
         “A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.” –Proverbs 19:5
         “A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.” –Proverbs 19:9
         “A false witness shall perish…” –Proverbs 21:28
         In Jeremiah 7:9 swearing falsely is as bad in God’s eyes as committing murder.
         “…love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.” –Zechariah 8:17
         Now in the New Testament in Matthew 5:29-30 we are told that if our right eye causes us to sin we are to pluck it out and if our right hand causes us to sin we are to cut it off. Maybe they should have their lying (sinful) tongues yanked out.

         I guess, according to God, as stated in these Biblical proclamations, those who lie (sin) should die. Should anybody argue with God? I won’t answer that; after all, this book only deals with non-violent reactions. Although R2 may deal with that matter – VOCAL won’t. This brings to mind a saying I heard on TV awhile back, “A sinner can repent. Stupid is forever.” Apparently, when I say we should do non-violent revenge I’m actually being rather lenient with these culprits when looking at it from the Biblical standpoint. Those who follow the Bible will see it pronounces rather severe punishments for not-too-serious infractions. Should we really disregard God’s wishes for these kinds of bottom-feeding scroungy characters?

         The implications of this kind of acid-splashing vengeance we talk about here have ramifications far beyond this isolated case. Let’s pose a hypothetical scenario. A vandalism of this nature could conceivably make more typical people aware of our plight than many other methods of vengeance already covered. Some would say vandalizing innocent people’s nice new cars that are not connected with the judicial system is not right. Let’s look at the issue from an oppressed and abused person’s point of view. Some of them say it’s the rich people that want us to receive severe punishments and then they are the ones that don’t care how we’re treated when we get them. These are some of the people responsible for pressuring the judicial system to get tough at any cost. And what a cost it can be as we’re seeing. In this point of view, typical people aren’t so innocent after all. Their get-tough policies often result in us losing more than the value of their nice cars’ paint jobs, in paid out exorbitant attorney fees and lost income from work for a given period of time. This financial loss is not even considered as part of the punishment, either officially in writing or unofficially. And if it’s not considered as part of the punishment, one should not sit idly by and allow it to happen to themselves. As this fearful era of get-tough policies continues and the costs mount I hope this work will sharpen the perspectives of the proponents of both the get-tough school and those liberal-thinking individuals sympathetic to our cause. Something better shake them up before more damage is done.
         Some are of the opinion that if a multitude of abused people were to splash up the town so to speak and then notify judicial people in the higher echelon such as the Chief of Police, the head District or U.S. Attorney, and the Chief Judge of a particular court jurisdiction etc. it may have enough impact to force some changes. Involving the various news media in a letter-writing campaign may also help our plight to get coverage in a wider audience. And, of course, informing the individual splash victims isn’t a bad idea either.
         Because the financial burden of the damage will eventually fall upon the auto insurance companies they should also probably be informed of the reasons. There are times that large private corporations have been able to have an influence on people in political positions. If the insurance companies were to get deluged with the exorbitant repair bills it’s almost assured they’d pressure the judicial system to straighten up its act. This could only happen if enough abused people would not stand idly by and accept abusive forms of treatment, and also if they would be sure to anonymously write the insurance companies and elsewhere previously mentioned so the system in its entirety will know what needs to be changed.
         When Thomas and Lee were conducting their splashing routines in early 1986 news media reported how outraged people and insurance companies were, and that they had no idea why it was happening. These two were so pleased to see other people bitching and sniveling in anger about getting unnecessarily victimized. It helped pass around some of the anger they felt over being victimized in the unnecessary costly ways they were.
         Imagine the easily-committed damages incurred by one vandalistically-inclined person driving slowly by just one line of parked cars splashing each one once and then multiply that by even a small percentage of abused people – say 100 – doing it all day long for just a few days and you can see the implications. The judicial system would surely feel the pressure to change wouldn’t they? There’s no question these are excessive measures, (just as are the excessive charges filed against us more serious than what we had done, just as is the excessive bail set on us to get out on, just as is the excessive punishments meted out) but as we’ve said before, sometimes you have to hit the mule between the eyes with the board to get its attention. You know how stubborn mules can be; and judicial personnel. Sometimes traditional methods of reasoning are not enough. As more and more of us gather battle scars – particularly the deep ones – more victims are adopting the attitude that we have the right to even the score.
         The judicial system needs to know that carefully-inclined vandals would make sure their license plates are not seen. One individual noted how he once taped the top edge of the plate to the inside of the car’s back window allowing it to flop free at the bottom. A thin pull string like dental floss tied to the lower edge and run up to the driver’s seat allowed him to fold it up out of the way when necessary. Some employee’s parking lots could not be entered due to a fold down gate only opened by a special key or card. A vindictive splasher on a motorcycle or bicycle could go right on by that, splash a line, and be gone in 30 seconds. It’s that easy. Authorities need to be aware, even these kinds of parking lots are not immune. The best action is obviously to adopt some changed ways.

         After Thomas’ arrest by surveillance police officers (he carelessly left his license plate visible for earlier witnesses to observe) the San Fernando DA, Lee Harris, charged him with several counts of assault with caustic chemical that, according to Penal Code § 244 were not valid. Specific intent is required for a person to be guilty of this statute and they knew he did not intend “to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of” these few people when he intentionally vandalized the numerous vehicles. Beyond that, case law also requires the chemical to touch the victim. One count didn’t even meet this provision as could be read in the police report. In the victim’s own clear statements Thomas was only guilty of vandalism, a much less serious crime, and the one he did intend to do. All this improper charging cost him more to defend against. He got one extra year consecutive on that one count alone. They also charged a special Great Bodily Injury (GBI) allegation (Penal Code § 12022.7) that was clearly not valid when the police report is read. It clearly stated there was “no serious injury to [any] victim.” Section 17.20 of the California Jury Instructions says that, “‘Great bodily injury,’ as used in this instruction, means a significant or substantial physical injury. Minor, trivial or moderate injuries do not constitute great bodily injury.”
         Despite that, Harris wanted an open-court hearing rather than quietly drop the GBI allegation. Maginnis told Thomas that Harris was the one who insisted on it because, with all the media publicity, he was worried how it would appear if the most serious charge was dismissed behind the closed doors of chambers. Probably he also didn’t want to look bad to the media and have to explain to them why he charged a count he shouldn’t have charged to begin with, if he had done his job and read the police report properly. It was then up to Thomas to pay his attorney for this hearing that wouldn’t have been necessary if Harris had merely done a proper job and filed only the proper vandalism charge at the outset. Basically it boils down to the fact that Thomas got stuck footing the bill so Harris could cover his ass.
         If we as defendants are expected to admit our errors in open public when we plead guilty, shouldn’t they be expected to do the same when they screw up? (How else can they fix the problem if they don’t even admit it?) And surely, shouldn’t they pay the cost; after all, they make us pay the cost when we do the screw up? All this is why Thomas would like to see Harris come out like a buffoon with big time egg on his face.
         (By the way, because there was so much media coverage, Thomas was hoping that some “revenge friendly” stranger hearing the circumstances and wishing to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery would have continued splashing so Thomas would have a legitimate excuse to say, “see I didn’t do it because even with me in jail it is still happening.” Police think reporting unsolved crimes in the media will always help them, but in a case like this revengers can turn it around and help the arrested person “prove” he or she is not the guilty party.)
         To top any of that off, police from the Devonshire substation of the Los Angeles Police Department which arrested him had splash victims, which got some of the overspray mist on them, identify his picture that in no way could have been done in a proper and legitimate way. For instance, when he drove by a line of cars squirting acid on them some of the mist blew onto a bicyclist he passed by going in the same direction. Yet she positively identified his face in a photo spread even though there is no way she could have seen him. At the most, she would have seen the back of his head through the back windows of his work van, the vehicle he was using to commit the vandalisms.
         In another indication of police misconduct in relation to making improper IDs, a girl testified in the above mentioned court hearing to show the media she was not injured. On the stand she was shown a photo spread with Thomas’ picture and immediately pointed it out. Then she was immediately asked if she could point that same person out in the courtroom. After looking all around, she could not at all even though Thomas had not changed his appearance in any way. This looks suspiciously like because police knew Thomas had splashed cars, they figured they had to point out his picture to splash victims in order to get an identification and therefore a conviction. Due to the way the splashing was done there is no doubt this was done for one or more of the victims.
         (Just be aware of lying police tactics of this nature. I remember one time the Las Vegas police told a younger friend, that was taken in for questioning with me and put in a separate room, that I had confessed that he was the guilty one when, in fact, I denied either of us was guilty of anything. Obviously they did this in order to get him to confess that I was the guilty party. This, of course, isn’t limited to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. The September 2nd, 1993 edition of ABC-TV’s Nightline addressed the issue of arrested people being actually forced to confess a crime while their conversation is being tape recorded. Sometimes they lie and say they have more evidence on you than they really have in order to try to get you to confess. If they can’t get their convictions in the proper way and without lying & conning they best not complain when we do sneaky things back to help others avoid capture. Listening in on police radio frequencies and tipping off others under surveillance is quite satisfying to alleviate lingering angers as it pertains to these sneaky police tactics. The moral to this is when you are arrested they tell you that you have a right to remain silent. Do it! Keep your damn mouth shut! Remember, a fish gets caught by opening its mouth. Don’t give them an easier way to convict you. Don’t make their job easier. Let them bring out whatever they have on you in court and work a deal from that point. Any time earlier; shut your trap no matter how tempted you are with a lie to try to clear your ass. Trust me on this. On more than one occasion I spoke up in an effort to try to talk my way out of something and inadvertently gave them information they were able to use to get more on me and by piecing it all together I got screwed worse than if I had kept my big mouth shut. I can’t make it any clearer – shut your mouth no matter what!!! Make sure you don’t aid them in their job. That’s their job – not yours. And just because they aren’t writing all of your statements down don’t let that fool you into talking. These interview rooms are wired for recording. Always assume anything and everything you say is being recorded. If mirrors are present you can also bet it is a one way setup and that a camera is on the other side taking your picture. Actually, with such small cameras now-a-days they don’t even need to do that. A book on a shelf across the room could easily hide one of these micro cameras. One trick they may use to try to get you to talk is what is known as the “good cop, bad cop” routine. One cop will be real mean and threatening to you for awhile and then the other one will come in and question you real politely. Their con here is that you’re more apt to spill the beans to the nice guy as a reward for him getting the other one away from you. Watch out for this trick and make sure you don’t get sucked in to their web. They’ll use anything to try to get you to talk. When I refused to wave my rights I was told that from that point forward anything I say cannot be used against me. Like a fool, I let my guard down and talked more freely. It is true that if I would have had a trial, any of my statements could not be used against me. The thing is though, my recorded statements were played to the deputy district attorney handling my case and with the additional information I spilled he got a higher bail set by the court and refused to deal as well as he should have. I can’t emphasize it enough – zip it shut; no matter what! Our incident in Las Vegas, by the way, happened in 1976 and I am madder now, when I think about it, that I let them get by with such deceitful tactics. But that happened before I had been abused as much as I have now been. I wouldn’t be as gracious today. In fact, if it wasn’t so far to drive I might be tempted to do something about it even this long after it happened. But I won’t Tragically, because DAs have immunity to purposeful lying and abuse we don’t have the option to prosecute them in legitimate court proceedings. Where does this leave us? Forget it or revenge it, that’s all we’ve got; and you know my feelings on that matter. The judicial system’s stance should be if they are going to take action against us, they should act responsibly. It’s wrong to leave them a “legal” way to commit these offenses. They need to be stopped before they’re allowed to victimize anybody else. I’ve heard various methods of revenge, unfortunately, far too many are beyond the scope of this book’s non-violent methods. [Even a non-violent one can be outside the parameters we have set here. The woman hospital worker who switched two babies in their cribs without anyone being the wiser – because she was mad the hospital fired her boyfriend when he broke a rule but only issued official reprimands to other workers that broke the same rule because they had more seniority – does not fit within our confines.] One of the most imaginative being to build a cell and kidnap the abusing DA and put him or her in for as long as you were. I strongly discourage this method, after all, it will cost too much to feed them for all those months or years even if you used as cheap and poorly prepared food as inmates in jail are fed.)
         On top of that, Thomas was then threatened with three improperly added priors (Penal Code § 667) to plead to what they offered or else I’d face enhancements up to 15 years that I found out only later, weren’t valid. And here it was, Thomas’ own attorney, paid for by him, going along with their side. Thomas didn’t confirm how wrong Maginnis was until it was too late and he was in state prison. All these extra charges, plus certain lies told to the court at the first bail hearing court appearance by Harris, jacked bail way up above what is normally called for when someone violates 244 (“bail deviation” I believe is the term they called it) and it cost Thomas’ parents extra lost bank interest to put it up and while courts had their money. Six months interest was lost from early withdrawal out of a high interest term account. This should not have been necessary had Harris done his homework properly and not overfiled the improper charges.
         The complete language of 244 is as such: “Every person who willfully and maliciously places or throws, or causes to be placed or thrown, upon the person of another, any vitriol, corrosive acid, or caustic chemical of any nature, with the intent to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of such person, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.” When Thomas questioned Maginnis about the statute requiring intent (I was not aware of the terms “general intent” and “specific intent” at that time) to injure and disfigure in order to be guilty of it he lied to convince Thomas that is not true by saying, “if one shoots a gun up into the air and the bullet comes down and accidentally kills someone it is still murder.” Today he couldn’t use that baloney to defendants since Korean grocer Soon Ja Du got probation for second degree murder because the court ruled she did not intend to kill the non-threatening walking away teenage girl. In fact, after the Williams and Watson part of the Reginald Denny trial was over with on October 20, 1993 Maginnis came on TV as Antoine Miller’s attorney and said there was no intent on the part of Antoine to kill Denny so he is innocent. Antoine, you’ll recall, only opened the door on Denny’s truck, probably to burglarize it. It was the other defendants who dragged him out and beat him. Antoine never touched him at all. Maginnis should have had the same response to Thomas about his lack of intent. This bullet crap won’t get it. It’s a dead issue. No pun intended. Truly, Maginnis owes him big bucks back. (If you agree you can contact him at home at: 6728 Wildlife Rd., Malibu, CA  90265-4305, (310) 457-5090.) It wouldn’t be quite so bad if Thomas would have gotten him court appointed for free like Antoine did, but he paid him out of his own pocket and he wants it back. Can you blame him? Maginnis shouldn’t be allowed to slither off with his bulging pockets filled with Thomas’ money. This is one character to stay away from folks. We don’t need double standards inflicted upon us from our own defense attorneys. The court in turn should also have only punished Thomas for his intentional misbehavior (vandalism) as required by statute. He should be excused for a non-intentional minor injury if someone can be excused for a non-intentional murder.
         And in some cases, those who have intentionally murdered others have gotten practically excused. Several years ago a man shot and killed his son’s molester while cameras were rolling away taping the whole scene. And I don’t believe he did any time for it. And who can forget Ellie Nessler. With public support behind her, she did only a few years in prison for the 1st degree murder she committed when she killed her son’s molester right in the courtroom.
         Thomas should never have even been charged with assault to begin with. On TV, a DA made a point of telling the media that he was not charging Mets’ outfielder Vince Coleman with assault in relation to his throwing a large firecracker (reported to equal 1/4 stick dynamite) into a crowd of baseball fans on July 24th 1993 because he said Vince had no intent to injure anyone. In his case, it was well publicized how his careless act injured a 2-year-old baby girl serious enough to show visible scratches near her eyes. Besides her, two other people suffered minor injuries; an 11-year-old boy and a 33-year-old woman. The injuries to these three people were worse than any physical injury Thomas caused during his carelessness while vandalizing cars. Vince was only charged with unlawful possession of an explosive device, the intentional thing he did do. Why couldn’t Harris have been as forthright in charging Thomas with only the proper charge of vandalism, his real intentional behavior? But as far as being charged with injuring others, why did he face one count for each person he injured when Coleman injured three people and faced only one count against him? And if Coleman was allowed to plead guilty to a mere misdemeanor, requiring no jail time, then why not Thomas? It’s noteworthy to mention that the assault statute Coleman could have been charged under, Penal Code § 245, is not a specific intent crime. Only general intent is required for guilt. If the natural circumstances of his act could result in bodily injury to another, then he rightfully could be found guilty of the crime – if only he would have been charged with it. Does Thomas have a legitimate right to claim he wants his money back, or what???
         And when 35-year-old Chinese refugee and transient Andres Zhang Huang accidentally set the fire that burned thousands of acres and over 150 homes in the Altadena area on October 27, 1993, causing some 140 million dollars in damages, he was only charged with a misdemeanor of starting an illegal open fire because an interviewed deputy district attorney said, “he had no criminal intent to start a fire,” he was only wanting to keep warm and was merely careless. Thomas had no criminal intent “to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of” anyone as required by statute in order to be guilty of it and they knew it. He was merely careless when he was splashing cars. Why wasn’t he treated with the same fairness?
         The Los Angeles Times (November 24, 1993, page B2) reported, “There is no evidence he was aware of the unique fire season conditions in the San Gabriel Mountains.” Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? And it apparently didn’t matter either that a 98-year-old man died of, “Pneumonia that detectives said was related to inhaling smoke from the Altadena fire.” (Los Angeles Times, November 30, 1993, page B2.) But wait – Huang’s criminality doesn’t end there folks. When he was arrested, he had three counterfeit $100.00 bills in his possession. He said he got them in Peru and just kept them as souvenirs. Ya, right!
         So what do you suppose his sentence was? Now he only faced a maximum of 6-months in the county jail and a $1,000.00 fine. Well he pled no contest and got 3-years probation and was ordered to live in a residential treatment center. (Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1993, page B2.) Surely the biggest thing that worked in his favor was his mental disability. Yet when Thomas tried to play that card he couldn’t get anything favorable out of it. Can you see him grumbling madly here?
         After going to state prison Thomas began researching the law and found conclusive proof that Maginnis was wrong. In preparation to filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus, his father asked Maginnis to sign a Declaration acknowledging the advise he gave to Thomas. Even though he would have only been admitting to giving the advise, and not admitting that it was wrong advise, he refused to sign it. Instead, he sent Thomas’ father a letter in an attempt to bolster his position that the advise he gave was correct. That letter says:

December 2, 1987

Mr. Xxxxx Larsen
XXXXX Xxxxxxxxx
Van Nuys, California  91XXX

    Re:  People v. Larsen

Dear Xxxxx:

    Enclosed you will find CALJIC 1.22 and the use notes that accompany the jury instruction. You will note that the comment specifically states that maliciously, as construed in a Penal statute, does not require specific intent. I am enclosing a copy of the Bohmer case for your review.

    Judge Fratianne was quite clear that he would have denied the motion, whether I was present in court or not, because he felt that the sentence that he meted out to Tom was reasonable pursuant to the plea bargain. He also felt that he was giving him a break, by not sentencing him on any of his four prior felony convictions.

                                              With warmest regards,


                                              J. PATRICK MAGINNIS

JPM:mry

Enclosures

         CALJIC 1.22 refers to § 1.22 of the California Jury Instructions. The comment Maginnis refers to states in part, “The word ‘maliciously’ in a penal statute does not make the crime defined a specific intent crime. People v. Bohmer, 46 Cal.App.3d 185, 120 Cal.Rptr. 136, certiorari denied 423 U.S. 990, 96 S.Ct. 402, 46 L.Ed.2d 308.” The Bohmer case involved defendants charged with blocking the passage of a train. Yes, malicious doesn’t require specific intent. But that’s not what Thomas was attacking. He’s addressing § 244’s intent “to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of such person.” And according to CALJIC’s Appendix D, that does require specific intent.
         In January 1998 I did some research in the law library on my own to fine tune this already-established position that Maginnis was wrong. Instead of Appendix D’s brief mention that 244 is a specific intent crime, I see the statute has now been assigned its own CALJIC number. It’s complete language is:

CALJIC 9.08.5
ASSAULT WITH CAUSTIC CHEMICALS
(Pen. Code, § 244)

   [Defendant is accused [in Count[s] _________] of having violated section 244 of the Pen. Code, a crime.]
   Every person who willfully and maliciously places or throws, or causes to be placed or thrown, upon the person of another, any vitriol, corrosive acid, flammable substance, or caustic chemical of any nature, with the specific intent to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of that person, is guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 244, a crime.
   [“Flammable substance” means gasoline, petroleum products, or flammable liquids with a flashpoint of 150 degrees fahrenheit, or less.]
   In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
   1. A person placed or threw, or caused to be placed or thrown,  (substance)  upon the person of the alleged victim;
   2. In so doing, the person acted willfully and maliciously; and
   3. The person also acted with the specific intent to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of the alleged victim.

         Well there you have it. It is a specific intent crime. It is one of three elements that must be proved in order to be guilty of the statute. And the specific intent is “to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of” a person – just like Appendix D told us so many years earlier. Wonder what Maginnis would say now with this waving in his face. So how do you suppose Thomas feels to have his suspicions confirmed that Maginnis did in fact screw him over and take his money and run? Surely he would remember it as if it was yesterday. Imagine somebody tries to kill you but botches the job, so that after a horrifying struggle you find yourself maimed, but somehow still alive. That’s what Maginnis’ actions were like. Thomas was injured, maybe not physically, but he was injured – badly.
         Anyway, back to his letter of December 2, 1987. He went on to justify why he didn’t show up in court. The day he missed was the day the Court was hearing the Motion Thomas prepared in an attempt to modify his sentence. Apparently Maginnis was too embarrassed to be there, seeing that Thomas was addressing the errors Maginnis made. His letter also keeps referring to Thomas’ priors, this time stating there were “four” when the correct number was really three. And, of course, Thomas later found out that only one of them would have been valid in the beginning; the two counterfeiting convictions did not meet the provisions for 5 plus 5 years enhancements. And after the GBI allegation was dismissed none of them were valid. This is what he should have been advised of before he entered a plea.
         Penal Code § 667 allows them to add 5 years to a prison sentence for each prior conviction of a “serious felony” if the current offense a person is charged with is also a “serious felony.” Penal Code § 1192.7 defines what constitutes a “serious felony.” If charges are “brought and tried separately” they count as separate priors. For those, like Thomas’ who had two counts that were consolidated together in Superior Court back in 1971, that would be a single conviction and count as one prior. 1192.7 listed that conviction as a “serious felony”; so there is no question that it would have been a valid prior. But the other two priors Harris alleged, those for passing counterfeit money, are not “serious felonies.” The GBI allegation, by its very nature, would have been a “serious felony.” Therefore, if it would have stuck, he faced one prior enhancement – not three as he was being threatened with. Now after the GBI allegation was dismissed, leaving just the 244s where no one even sought any medical attention, his current offense would have most assuredly been classified as a regular ol’ non-serious felony – meaning no prior conviction enhancements could be added.
         Thomas plead no contest (the same as a guilty plea for all practical purposes), not only to the 244 counts (which he was led to believe he was guilty of despite his lack of intent), but to as many 244 counts as they wanted him to, strictly because Maginnis was making him feel pressure that he would get 15 extra years on top of whatever sentence was imposed if he didn’t.
         And to top that off, the California Supreme Court in People v. Day (1926) 248 P. 250, 199, C. 78 states, “…Section 244 require proof of the fact that the acid actually touched the person of another,…the defendant cannot be found guilty of the offense charged if the attempt to throw or place acid upon the person of another failed of fruition.…” In count 3 the victim, Charles Simons, clearly stated in the police report that the acid touched only his vehicle, not him. Yet, Thomas was still improperly charged with assault with chemical, rather than merely misdemeanor vandalism, and got an extra year consecutive on that count. He did 6 months more in prison and had to give the prison free work to earn the other 6 months off. Grumble, grumble! Maginnis just makes Thomas angrier and angrier. He always had to admit his wrong doings when he got caught. Why can’t Maginnis? He must!!!
         It is precisely because they put their emphasis on the wrong thing all along and stuck him with a violent crime conviction, as if he had done it intentionally, and in turn practically neglected the non-violent intentional vandalism aspect of his deeds, the exact opposite of what they should have done, despite Thomas’ pleadings to not misplace their priorities onto the wrong thing again, that he speaks up with his opinions so forcefully, favorably, and yes, even sometimes comically, for this method of vandalism as an easy, satisfying, and fun way to cause a lot of grief to a lot of people with no danger of injuring anyone provided care is taken. He loves knowing that he’s giving judicially-abused people ammunition to annoy other people in return. (Actually, none of this would have surfaced had the Fairness Doctrine been adhered to all along. They had no business overfiling charges they knew weren’t valid just so they could threaten him with facing them all so he would to plead to something lower. Let that be a hint to others prone to misbehavior. When they “win” a conviction with this tactic – which is nothing short of terrorism and extortion – just so they can save time and avoid a legitimate trial we are left feeling real bitter and angry. They may be opening up a can of worms they have no idea is even present. They may find – and should find – the time they save will be a loss many times over later on down the line.) This is Thomas’ way of revenging DA Harris and Superior Court Judge Robert D. Fratianne for putting improper emphasis on the wrong thing. They knew what the proper charge was to file. They knew what his true intentional behavior was. They knew what is required by statute to be guilty of assault with chemical. They knew Thomas doesn’t respond to unfair treatment very well. And then they still made a conscious choice to sidestep proper conduct and even actually expected him to just accept it and even pay improper-advise giving Maginnis’ bills. If that isn’t a lot of gall, what is? To believe they could pull off such a stunt is to believe in a dream world. It’s total fiction. Obviously, they’re not living in the real world. Obviously they didn’t realize they picked the wrong person to screw over – again. They put the emphasis on the wrong thing so Thomas is putting it back where it belongs – on the vandalism. Truly, they should have stuck to the right thing and been more concerned they don’t screw him over again. Obviously, like other offenders earlier, this bunch too came out as goats with big time egg on their faces. They’re just lucky violent behavior is not a part of his nature. These people need to review the Old Canon of Ethics of the American Bar Association; “The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done.”
         Thomas, of course, does not do the deed himself any longer knowing that, because of the unusual nature of this crime, he is immediately suspect when it happens and police are on his doorstep questioning him about it. They even questioned him when it happened as far away as San Diego, Bakersfield, Shafter, and Tulare in August 1993. Do you think it was one of his “students” he seeded with the thought when he was in prison? Who knows. But it brought a smile to his face, just knowing it may have been. When they do question him he just shows them his writings about the deed much as is presented here and they know splashing information is out and about to more and more people. As much as they want to stop it and him from spreading the word around, they can’t. He doesn’t do the deed any longer and his writings with the proper disclaimer are Constitutionally protected. Obviously Fratianne and Harris should have had their priorities in the appropriate place right at the start and been more concerned they don’t trigger off something else farther down the line. They, like too many others in the judicial system, were looking at just the short term “protection of society” philosophy (while he was in custody) and giving no thought whatsoever to the long-term effects down the line (after he gets out). Here is another clear cut example of doing something legal to get revenge and piss off others (to get that now-famous MIF), especially law enforcement, while having no risk of getting arrested. It is not illegal to merely give an honest opinion that wronged people “should” do the deed as long as you don’t do the deed yourself or prod someone into doing it. It has something to do with free speech and that First Amendment thing. It always creeps in there somewhere when you least expect it. Trust me, it is fun to spread the word! As much as doing the deed, but without the risk. Yea splashing fun – or in this case, talking fun! I love it when a plan comes together!!! : - )
         Thomas looks at it as recreational vandalism. With lost funds he is no longer able to pursue his previous hobbies or purchase a nice vehicle to be proud of so this is an inexpensive way to have fun. A replacement recreation to make up for the legal recreational hobbies he is no longer able to do as well or as enjoyably as he should be able to thanks to them. Ah, inexpensive fun – I like that! Accomplishing revenge by just talking vandalism is such a neat way to get even. No one can get hurt, it gets the attention of others, and it really pisses them off. Oh boy!
         Just remember, if you’ve done an unusual crime not too many do, expect law enforcement to come checking on you if a similar one happens. Whatever you do, don’t keep anything incriminating at your residence or work. Or even in a rented storage locker if it is rented in your name. When the Secret Service found no printing equipment at Lee’s residence they called around to local storage places and found he had a rented garage. This is where they found much of his printing equipment to steal, a theft that, as we’ve said before, is costing them big time to this very day, which they still have no objection to.
         If only the proper offense Thomas did do (vandalism) would have been charged in the beginning he could have safely gotten by with a public defender at no cost to him. Because of invalid serious charges he had to defend against he paid thousands to psychiatrists (some were friends of Maginnis, who maybe got some money for referring Thomas to them) for court evaluations. Evaluations that wouldn’t have been necessary if only the proper charges were filed.
         Thomas’ own paid attorney, the same one defending Antoine Miller in the Reginald Denny beating case, gave Thomas wrong advice which prompted him to plead to more counts and he got more time. When he inquired about having to plead to so many counts of assault with chemical Maginnis told him that Fratianne doesn’t sentence consecutively anyway so it doesn’t matter. (Thomas ended up being sentenced to consecutive sentences anyway totaling 6-years in state prison.) His biggest worry though was the 3 priors they kept hanging over his head, about 15 extra years beyond the sentence he was facing for the crime itself, and they weren’t even valid. (Another privately retained attorney researching this issue found this out for sure.)
         When Maginnis was confronted with the known facts he tried to weasel his way from blame by sending Thomas’ father the above letter and some copied law book pages to try to bolster his actions as being right. The thing is that what he sent conflicted with the truth Thomas’ side found and Maginnis never has, even to this day, admitted any of his errors. Thomas warns everyone he can about Maginnis’ tactics. I just hope Antoine Miller is treated more competently. Maginnis even admitted without shame to Thomas and his father how the system is unfair and insinuated how he was expected to accept it. Having an attorney like that makes one understand why William Shakespeare said, “First thing, kill all the lawyers.”
         After the July 1, 1993 San Francisco lawyer massacre by Gian Luigi Ferri, a business man disgruntled by some legal interaction, the President of the State Bar went on the air to complain about “lawyer bashing” jokes. In his complaining about the joking abuse lawyers have to put up with, he failed to mention all the abuse they put out that causes them to have this form of bad press to begin with. How many Maginnis’ are there out there? How many of their victims are suffering because of tactics like that? Should the bashing jokes stop? Shouldn’t more serious action be taken? Hmmm.
         Before sentencing, Thomas wrote an 18-page letter to Judge Fratianne explaining how it “was totally by accident and very careless on my part” that “6 people [got] some overspray mist on them…that was not intentional.” He assured him, “I am not like that and have never intentionally tried to hurt a person physically.” In his letter, he also asked that toward sentencing, he consider all the monetary expenses I suffered, along with the mitigating circumstances of previous improper judicial misdeeds and embarrassment he sustained by media advertising and emphasizing the improper counts. Judge Fratianne did not so Thomas shouldn’t suffer them if they’re not considered as part of the official punishment. And $3,310.00 more in doctor bills come in after sentencing that Judge Fratianne wasn’t even aware of. Even though the probation report and a 100-day diagnostic study conducted by staff at the California Institution for Men at Chino recommended state prison, Thomas honestly thinks he should have been given probation to make up for the time in 1973 when the probation report (and even Chino would have if I had been given a 90 day study) recommended probation and Judge Rosenthal gave him state prison instead. Being a judge didn’t go by a probation and Chino report then, in all fairness a judge shouldn’t go by them now.
         If the name, J. Patrick Maginnis, sounds familiar you, may have seen the name written on the jail house walls. Thomas was so angry at him that every county jail cell, dormitory, holding cell, or whatever room he was placed in – and if you’ve been in there you know how much inmates get moved around – he wrote on the walls a brief note about Maginnis’ shenanigans with a warning to beware of him at any cost. He included not only his office address and phone number, but his home address and phone number in Malibu as well: 6728 Wildlife Rd., (310) 457-5090. He was careful to tell the truth though. He wasn’t going to sink into the sewer of lying as Maginnis had done to him. With a beautiful wife and a young daughter at home you’d think he’d be more careful in dealing with convicts and make sure he dots all his I’s and crosses all his T’s in a proper way. Let’s hope future clients will find better luck. It seems Antoine is, but then he’s getting publicity. What about the rest? Would you put your freedom in his hands knowing he’s prone to a double-standard philosophy? If so, would you like to buy some swamp land? how ’bout some ocean-front property in Arizona? I cast my vote on the side of caution – you know that. No more double standards for me. This is one character to stay f a r away from.
         Knowing full well an improper monetary cost triggered off the vandalizing events in this case and that Thomas was being sentenced on counts that were not valid Fratianne still had the nerve to impose a $1,000.00 fine. Fortunately, somebody down the line saw fit to not try to collect it. They knew better and kept their grubby little paws off of HIS money.
         It’s interesting to note that it was because of this case’s improprieties, along with remembrances of others, that Thomas solemnly vowed to never again be forced by way of pressure, threats, or extortion to pay for an attorney out of his pocket and never pay a fine or suffer an unnecessary or unfair judicial-caused expense without returning a punishment comparable in nature back upon them with enhancements as reoffenders get. (He says he will personally do nothing to bring on an attack of symptoms. And at the same time, will not allow symptom-producing behavior to be done to him without first advising the instigator of likely side effects.) He promises that there will be no more income-funneling judicial related expenses out of his pocket ever again! And that they can take to the bank – his bank! And that includes traffic tickets. If he gets one, he’ll choose doing the few days in county jail rather than pay the fine. He won’t run out on a promise to appear mind you; he just won’t pay a fine. He doesn’t mind doing the brief jail time as long as it costs them and not him – after all; he does love to cost the judicial system money; to monkey wrench as he puts it. That is a pet hobby of his. Some people like cats or dogs or collecting stamps. He likes monkey wrenching. (Did you catch the pun there? Pet and Hobby?) And he’s especially adamant about this vow because he’s been punished for the very same thing; making threats. He’s not about to accept them from somebody else! Double-standard violations are one thing he don’t tolerate no more. Don’t expect him to. He’s far, far to close to the edge on this topic.
         Even though Fratianne didn’t add priors to his sentence, part of the 6-years Thomas got was imposed because of his past record and Fratianne especially made note of that on the record. That is an extremely anger provoking thing to be forced to accept, especially when Thomas was over punished on his past crimes. If anything, time should have been knocked off to make up for the unfair excesses before along with the abuse he suffered at the hands of others which no one got punished for. And they wonder why we respond to excess to useless crap that forcefully gets dished our way? Reality check here people. Who was excessive first? I’ll pause a bit while slower thinkers make sure they get it right. Ya got it? O.K. good.
         (I remember the time back in 1976 when an Orange County judge, unaware of my past record, offered me a weekend in jail if I pled guilty to petty theft. When stupid me turned down the deal and asked for a trial, which set off my next court date about two weeks, the judge then had a chance to get my past files and when he saw what I had in it he said he would accept a guilty plea to the lower charge of trespassing but would now sentence me to 14 days. When I reminded him he offered me only two days for a guilty plea to the higher petty theft charge he said that that was before he knew of my past. In other words I was getting an extra 12 days for the past, something I was already overly punished for, only 2 days was for this crime. Rest assured, Orange County did not fare too well for cheating me out of 12 extra days out of my life. Don’t let them give you more time on something you’ve already completed your time on. A new unrelated crime should not add time to a past finished crime’s sentence.)
         An inmate is allowed to file a Motion for Modification of Sentence within 120 days of sentencing if new factors unknown at the time of sentencing become present. Judge Fratianne claimed Thomas’ sentence modification request was filed late so he had no jurisdiction over him any longer. (The docket sheet states, “Defendant’s Application for Modification is placed off calendar. The Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to modify sentence herein.”) As it turns out, it was filed one day before the deadline; on the 119th day after sentencing. What is so angering is that Fratianne was extra fussy about a deadline of his as it pertained to papers Thomas filed, but when it comes to a deadline he set for the probation officer (Mr. Robert Kelsey) and Chino, he allowed them to get by with not keeping to his deadline. The probation officer had over 2 months to do a Probation & Sentencing report and still didn’t get it done and Fratianne allowed him to have more time by setting off Thomas’ sentencing date about 1 month. He was then sent on a 90-day observation at Chino but Fratianne set the report and court due date 100 days away to allow them some extra time. Even with 10 extra days they didn’t make his date. They needed another week and he allowed it which meant he was stuck in the L.A. County Jail that extra time with no bail set. Then when it comes to him to file papers by a 120 day deadline he’s told he’s too late when he wasn’t. Even if he was, why couldn’t he have had the same courtesy as the others? Is there any wonder he would or should be discourteous in return? Is there any wonder he should be hyper-sensitive about double-standard violations committed against him?
         So what did all these anger-provoking costs add up to you wonder? In the neighborhood of $45,000.00 lost to Maginnis, psychiatrists, and interest not earned when their money was put up for excessive bail and not invested in their own banks. And later they hired another attorney to assist in his Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to fix Maginnis’ errors. Even though it was unsuccessful, he still cost them $6,500.00. And none of these figures tally up lost wages Thomas lost by not being out in the community working. He did around 128 extra weeks in prison beyond what a proper punishment for vandalism would have been.
         Of all the hundreds and hundreds of people who got their cars sprayed with battery acid and the few who got some of the overspray mist on their skin, not one of them showed up at the time of Thomas’ sentencing to speak up against him as they were entitled to do. And it’s not like they didn’t know either. Besides being in the newspapers, the probation officer stated in his report to the court that he contacted victims. So did Thomas have anybody speaking up against me besides the deputy district attorney? You bet! His ol’ fat buddy, Mrs. Reeves – who wasn’t even a victim in this case (or even the one with son Michael’s case) – butted her way in there to say what an awful thing he had done to Michael and how he deserved prison. Noticeably absent though was Michael. Every other time (and there were many court appearances through those years with her) she yanked him out of school so he would be in court even when he didn’t need to be. Somewhere during her flaming condemnation of Thomas it come out that Michael moved out of her house in August of 1986. Now from the police report which had his birth date in it, we see that he would have turned 18 in August of 1986. Apparently, he high tailed his ass out from under her roof as soon as he turned 18 and was legally able to do so. Thomas already knew he was sort of on his side. First he tipped him off to the wiretap, and then he didn’t tell police about some of the activities they had done together which was probably his way of silently disobeying his mother who wanted Thomas in as much trouble as possible back in ’85. Now with him not in court as an adult, Thomas was sure that’s his way of standing on his side without literally doing so.
         Despite Michael’s absence, Mrs. Reeves, who was not a victim in anycrime Thomas had done, went into a long rambling spiel about how he had hurt their family so bad – and on, and on, and on… It seems the only way she could avoid feeling any guilt for contributing to Michael’s abusive treatment was to over emphasize how Thomas was the culprit rather than her. And boy was she over zealous about it, so much so that Fratianne even rolled his eyes in a way indicating he now understood the source of Thomas’ anger and need to lash out.
         Luckily, Thomas doesn’t think like some other victims do. Some who were wrongly forced to plead to a crime they didn’t do are actually going to do the crime after they get out just for the spite of it. After all, they are already getting punished for it so they might as well get their money’s worth. Besides it’s easier to swallow an unfair conviction and punishment if they actually do do the deed. One guy I talked to was threatened – under duress of facing a longer sentence – to plead guilty in open court to attempted extortion even though the court and DA knew he never intended it that way. To make up for it he regularly sends threatening letters to others to pass on at least some of the unnecessary distress he had to put up with and still does. He has no intention of following through with any of his threats so his vengeance fits well within our guidelines of a non-violent revenge.
         Some think about doing the crime they never did to begin with but got punished for whether it was a violent crime or not. While I never recommend it for violent crimes against a person, truly something should be done so negligent or non-caring prosecutors don’t go unscathed scot free. They must be held accountable and chastised. Make sure they know it’s cheaper for society to get their convictions the right way and then get only the ones that are proper to get. Once word of this gets around I think those misbehavior-prone DAs are going to really be watching their P’s & Q’s. Or they will when the public gets on their asses.
         Soon after Thomas got to a permanent prison destination staff left some of his records negligently laying around and inmate clerks or janitors working in the area read them. One of the worse offenses in the eyes of inmates is child molesting which is how his incident with Michael is listed. (Oddly, these same hostile inmates, some barely beyond their teenage-years themselves, were heard bragging to their friends how they would like to have sex with actress Christina Applegate who they saw on TV. (She plays Kelly Bundy on Fox’s Married With Children.) As it turns out, she was under 18-years-old until part way through their 4th season. She was even a young as 15 for all of the first season and half of the second. Why don’t they see that as child molesting as it is? And themselves as potential child molesters? Hmmm.)
         Thomas was threatened and moved to a totally separate section of the prison and staff at that location was careful to not make the same mistake again. Here no inmates knew of his past sex life, or even that he was gay. After about 20 months into his sentence his good prison behavior was going to get him sent to a lower-custody prison to complete his time. This lower-custody prison had open dormitory living where he could be attacked at night by anyone knowing of his past. The place he was currently at had two people to a cell and the doors are locked at night, making it a lot safer for molesters. Knowing that such people are at the bottom of the skewed pecking order of prison culture and are continually made to feel like soiled pieces of baggage by way of harassment and threats, he was scared. Anything can happen in the dark hallways of an open dorm but no amount of appeals he filed were getting his pending transfer cancelled. One staff member even hinted how some inmates will sometimes purposely disobey a prison rule in order to get a write up. This would raise their custody level and keep them at a higher-level institution. Thomas was well aware of this tactic and had already decided to do it. He even vandalized a fair amount of clothing, bedding, and more than one TV, in hopes prison officials would write him up for a serious rule violation which would raise his security level. Unfortunately for all parties involved they wouldn’t do it, even though they knew he was guilty, apparently because they knew it was purposely done so he could stay.
         Thomas had been toying with the idea of wanting to give Mrs. Reeves a piece of his mind once again. After her courtroom visit, when he didn’t have a chance to speak up to her, he needed her to hear what he had to say. In the least, he wanted her to know that she had done some criminal acts by lying under perjury and that she should not be so willing to throw stones when she is guilty herself. Of course he wanted her to know what extra money he lost on account of her false statements to Judge Willett and that she should foot the bill for that, but he never really expected her to sit down and write him out a check, let alone apologize.
         Remembering how another inmate got yanked off of the minimum-custody yard when he wrote someone a letter they claimed was threatening, Thomas thought possibly he could use Mrs. Reeves to his advantage to get his transfer cancelled. She claimed his last letter was threatening when it only contained condemnatory statements she didn’t like to hear. He could get his last word in now and at the same time surely count on her to complain to prison staff about what he said. Not only did he count on her to notify prison staff, he instructed her to do it.
         He wrote to her again in harsh language designed to incite her but also to straighten out some further improprieties of hers in addition to his need to vent off considerably more steam and prevent less appropriate behavior. And he was just so mad there were times he pounded those typewriter keys pretty hard too. But, of course, it’s better to pound its keys than to pound in her head. He only expressed his honest belief and opinion as to how they could and should make up their past misdeeds. In expressing his opinions and wanting to stay at the higher-security level prison he allowed his language to get away more than he intended. Because of fear, his wording to Mrs. Reeves inadvertently went too far and he was charged with extortion (Penal Code § 523, Sending threatening letters with intent to extort money, etc.), although that wasn’t his intent – and specific intent is required as part of that statute too for a person to be guilty of it. He never actually expected Mrs. Reeves to sit down and write him a check. He even told her to show the letter to police (and saying how he could tell a whole new group of inmates about her misbehavior if he transferred), hoping they would contact prison staff and he would be considered too “dangerous” to transfer to a lower-security open-dorm living prison. In the past he’s always been held back when officials said he was a danger in some way, even when he wasn’t. This time he was trying to use the category to his advantage, yet prison staff paid it no mind and he was shipped off anyway.
         As far as Thomas’ words beyond reason to Mrs. Reeves, who hasn’t said things to their kids at a time of emotional excitement or anger they later realize wasn’t right. The DA accepts that Mrs. Reeves’ earlier perjury and lies were done at a time of emotional fear at Thomas’ other harsh letter he sent her back in ’85 and didn’t prosecute her. In all fairness to her, if she deserves any more fairness than she’s already gotten an abundance of, he believes she may not have purposely sunken into the sewer of perjury when she lied. She may have just had a lapse of better judgment in her time of emotional uneasiness.
         At the same time there is also a third lie committed by her in relation to this letter to report. She wrote to Judge Major, who took over Judge Fratianne’s cases while he was out on disability, and told him that Thomas threatened both Judges Fratianne and Willett. (She even said Thomas threatened her life, which is not true.) In fact, Thomas only criticized them and he later told her to correct the error because, even though he no longer has any pending court cases in front of either of them, he does not want incorrect information in his files. He has not checked his files there yet to verify if she has sent a correction, but he suspects she hasn’t – after all she wasn’t woman enough to admit any other errors after he made her aware of them before. If she hasn’t, she should be prompted with much vigor to do so without delay. Surly the court shouldn’t let her slither out of this duty.
         The agitation of Mrs. Reeves showing up at his sentencing when she didn’t belong there antagonized Thomas further in his so called “extortion” letter to her. If her mis-written statements can be excused due to their being written at a time of fear she thought was present, then why shouldn’t Thomas’ be allowed for in the very same way? To the court he expressed he had a great deal of evidence to show he had a valid fear about transferring from the safer higher-custody cell living prison and his state of mind should have been allowed for as hers was when she wasn’t prosecuted. He did not intend to do a crime any more than she did. He even said that he didn’t in several of the sentences in his letter. While the DA, whether an assistant or the head supervising one for the Torrance courthouse, was nit-picking to find Thomas’ bad words, he or she should have been as choosy with numerous ones that cleared him of wrong doing. For instance, on page 10 of this 17-page typed letter (first 16 pages were typed and page 17 was handwritten) he said, “I’ll repeat he has no intent of doing anything illegal though.” I should mention that Thomas wrote the letter as if it was coming from another third person writing about Thomas’ anger at Mrs. Reeves. And on page 11 he said, “And he’s not doing anything illegal. Nothing more than telling the truth about you, while hoping you don’t like it.” And page 17 was his attempt to have Mrs. Reeves get his transfer cancelled. “Because mail needs a return address to leave here and because I don’t wish to say who I am, I’m putting [his] address on the envelope. I also address it to you as an attorney so it can be sealed from snooping staff eyez. Ironically because of [his] ‘good’ behavior he will be transferred to a lower custody institution within days to finish his sentence. Staff reclassified him to this, obviously unaware of what he’s been up to. He’s already cost them a bundle of money. [He] will now have a whole new group of inmates to tell about you and pass on his opinions about revenge. You would be advised to see he stays where he is. He can do less damage where he is as everyone already knows him.” Shame on the DA for not being equally picky about pointing out his good wording. This happens all to often by judicial people reading about our deeds. They will highlight the bad parts and neglect the good parts. Then they wonder why we act bad rather than good in response later on.
         When Thomas read the Penal Code statute he saw that it is a crime to threaten to expose someone’s crimes if they don’t pay you money – apparently even if its your own money they owe you. He think it’s a lot of nerve to charge him with threatening to publicly expose Mrs. Reeves’ crimes of slander and perjury, which clearly fit within California Penal Code definitions, and still not charge her for those crimes. Using that phrasing in the criminal complaint against him as they did, they finally admit that what she did was in fact a crime. To this day she remains an unindicted criminal though.
         Now if one writes to someone who lied about us under oath that we are going to expose them for perjury, a felony, we can be charged with making a threat, a misdemeanor; and what happens to the one who committed perjury – nothing! That’s fair? (It’s not even what the Bible teaches. In 1 Timothy 5:20 we find that sinners should be rebuked publicly so that the rest may be afraid. Thomas had a Biblical duty to expose her sins. We all do. The moral is, just do it. Don’t tell somebody ahead of time you’re going to expose them because that’s where you apparently step over the line of criminal activity.) Who’s the real victim here? Can society afford to turn their backs on these kinds of actions any longer? Are they really making a defendant safer for society by using this tactic? Hmmm.
         Thomas made them aware of the proper misdemeanor charge he should have only been charged with (Penal Code § 650; Sending letters threatening to expose another). Even it would have been a questionable charge, but none of that mattered though. He was threatened to plead to the original felony charge and accept a small amount of additional time (when back time credits are figured in) or face a lot more if I lost a trial. The deputy district attorney and Superior Court Judge Cecil J. Mills knew his language didn’t fit within the provisions of the felony statute, but that didn’t matter to them. They even, as if a slap in the face, put it on the record (citing a case called People v. West) that they acknowledge he wasn’t guilty when they took his pressured guilty plea. They should have been more interested in winning justice for all, rather than just winning a conviction at any cost. (And boy – what a cost it can be. In the long run they don’t win at all.) The spirit of the law is to find the truth – the real and unbiased truth. They should be more concerned about getting at it. Only then should a person be judged and then punished only if he is found to be in the wrong. When that is not done justice is not served and the perpetrators should not be allowed to prevail. How dare they accuse him of a threat then turn around and threaten him. If making a threat is a crime, then aren’t they also criminals? I honestly believe so. They should be treated as such. He was only guilty of using Mrs. Reeves to his advantage to try to stay at that same prison; not a crime! How dare them even accuse him of a threat when they subjected him to the fear and intimidation of the L.A. County Jail when they knew he couldn’t bail out.
         Thomas was willing to take it to trial with all the documentation he had to show how he tried to stay at Donovan and what legitimate fears he had about being in an open-dormitory institution. If he would have been out on bail he would have done it in a heart beat, but because he was already serving time, he was not entitled to bail and that county jail for a pre-trial inmate in the maximum-custody area is a bitch to do time in. He had already been there for 76 days by this time when Judge Mills offered him the bare minimum state prison sentence he could – 8-month in exchange for a guilty plea. With half-time credits allowed by law he would normally do 4 months of that. But they told him that 76 days back-time county jail credits would come off the 4 months which would leave him only about 46 days or so to serve. Of course they heightened the offer by saying they’d waive getting a formal probation report before sentencing and would in fact sentence him that day plus order the sheriff to get him back to Tehachapi forthwith (meaning as soon as possible) along with recommending that prison staff transfer him back to the safer prison. That sounded like an offer made in heaven. Exchange 46 some odd days for his safety and get out of that miserable county jail a hell of a lot sooner than if he had a trial.
         Well what’s that saying about a sucker being born every minute, or if something sounds too good to be true it probably is? When Thomas got back to the open-dorm prison he couldn’t get them to abide by the deal They agreed to, as to how Judge Mills ordered that he be credited for the 76 days back time. They said because he was already doing another sentence and this new one was consecutive to it, that he was not entitled to the 76 days credit. Granted, the way the complexities of the law is about receiving jail credits when one is already serving time, the prison was correct in denying them. But still, a deals a deal. Either Judge Mills, who knew he was edgy about wanting to get out of the county jail soon, intentionally hood-winked him, or he just didn’t understand how those credits are calculated for someone already serving a sentence – it’s hard to know. But when he advised him how the institution was handling the new sentence Mills would not uphold the decision they made together. He could have resentenced him to 46 days total and that would have fixed everything. But no, he left the original sentence stand and Thomas ended up doing 4-months of the 8-month total sentence – 76 days more than he pled guilty to. If they were so nit-picky at the words he used to classify them as illegal, they should have been as nit-picky with upholding the deal that Judge Mills made. Shame on them for not being equally picky about that. If one thing can be so simply brushed aside as if it was nothing, then surely so can the other one be. During that 4-months he had to do free prison work in order to get the other 4-months off. When he was a child and took something back that he had previously given to a playmate he was called an “indian giver” in the most looked-down upon terms. He can still recall the how little the other kids made him feel for what he had done. Judge Mills should be made to feel the same way. Such characters are nothing but termites of evil destroying the foundations of our “justice” system and they should not be allowed to succeed. In case anyone wishes to voice their criticism to him; as of January 1998 he was a Juvenile Court Judge at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court, 7281 E. Quill Dr., Downey, CA  90242-2096.
         And to make matters worse, the prison refused to honor Judge Mills’ recommendation and send him back to the safer place. Needless to say, Thomas was pissed royally, besides being scarred. Now he’d be in danger an extra 4 months.
         Such prison fears Thomas had are not without merit. While he was at the lower-level dormitory housing prison one bold convict murdered a fellow inmate with a prison-made knife in broad daylight among crowds of others on the baseball bleachers knowing the inmate “code of silence” would allow him to escape unpunished. He calculated correctly as no one came forward to staff, inmates only talked over the particulars among themselves. One can only imagine what could happen in the dead of night in an open dorm and staff don’t take it serious when a person who sexually interacts with minors is violated.
         Thomas presented the court with evidence where prison staff lightly punished a person who severely beat up such a person. On another occasion while Thomas was there a melee broke out on the yard with several inmate injuries and throughout all the time he’s done he’s seen many fights, sometimes for what most ordinary people consider minor reasons. Truly, he had valid concerns of worry.
         It’s amazing the threats Thomas has had to live with throughout they years that no one even begins to lift a finger to protect him from. But let him merely threaten to expose another person’s wrong behavior and he get raked through the coals. A few years ago we had female Korean grocer Soon Ja Du getting probation from Judge Joyce Karlin for killing a 15-year-old girl the court ruled she was emotionally afraid of, even though the 15-year-old was non-threatening and walking away at the time of the murder. Why couldn’t Thomas have gotten probation for making a harsh and sort of moderate, but non-physically harming, threat when he was emotionally afraid? Once again, he shouldn’t have to put up with a double standard and it’s amazing they actually expect him or anyone to do so. Like it’s said before, fairness is not an adjustable concept and it doesn’t fluctuate.
         And if Zsa Zsa Gabor can get only 3 days in jail for actually hitting somebody why does Thomas get 8 months extra in prison when he touched no one or even threatened to physically touch or injure? His threat was only to disclose past criminal activity of Mrs. Reeves to the public at a future time – something he was never told he couldn’t actually do at any time, now or in the future. While he can speak about her in a truthful manner all he wants to anyone at the current time, he can’t “threaten” he plans to do it at a future time – that’s when it becomes a crime.
         Now when police inflict minor but unnecessary and improper physical injuries on people they don’t get prosecuted. This infuriates Thomas greatly as to why he should have been singled out. Worse yet, when police misconduct is serious enough and they are prosecuted, their attorney is paid for by taxpayers (or their own Police Protective League as in the case of the cops that beat Rodney King), even though they can afford it. This is really intolerable discrimination and particularly angering in view that he was forced to pay his own attorney in the 1985 and ’86 Torrance matters and this time he gets a cheap ass public defender, nowhere near as good as a privately appointed attorney like the King defendants got, who led him astray to think he’s get back time jail credits.
         He truly remains very angered and feels owed. He doesn’t demand compensation (nor does anybody else reported on here in these pages who say they want their money back), but he truly feels he’s owed it! If William Kennedy Smith can publicly express his belief that he expects compensation for improper judicial prosecution soon after his rape trial was over then so can Thomas – and he does so with as much vigor!
         What is so additionally anger provoking is that he gets blamed, prosecuted, and punished for telling someone that really is a guilty culprit that they owe him, but the Internal Revenue Service can actually, out in the wide open with no attempt to hide their intent, threaten an innocent person that is merely an employee of a company (not an owner whatsoever) to pay back taxes the owner didn’t pay. Here’s another example where what is legal and what is right part company. They do this form of “legal” theft if there is more of a chance of collecting the debt from some innocent person with seizable assets than there is from the real guilty culprit who is the real responsible person who does not have assets that can be found and/or seized. They can get away with this because they say laws make a mere employee responsible for the intentional tax evasion of the owner if that employee had the power to write company checks as part of normal business operations.
         On April 14th, 1992 NBC-TV’s Dateline NBC told about a suicide after the IRS wrongly demanded money from a family. Why shouldn’t those misbehaving agents be charged with murder? When a guy on an unrelated case was fleeing capture in a car and two pursuing police helicopters collided and crashed killing officers on board, the fleeing person was charged with murder. Even though the pilots’ negligence to watch their nearby air space really should put the blame on them, the fleeing person gets blamed because they say his original actions caused the wreck. Shouldn’t the IRS be held to the same standards? If the negligent pilots aren’t to blame, should the severely distressed suicide victim be to blame for his death? If the fleeing suspect gets all the blame and punishment for a death he didn’t intend but indirectly caused, shouldn’t misbehaving IRS agents be treated the same way when their actions indirectly caused an inadvertent death? Shouldn’t we expect that? I know I do. It’s high time we make sure all misbehaving judicial personnel get the same treatment for their misactions as we would get for the same kind of misactions we do. None of this crap of giving them a low bail or OR release for the same kind of crime we’d get a high bail for. None of them getting a good lawyer for free when we get a dump truck public defender too rushed to give you a proper defense. No more bending over backwards to mitigate the offending judicial-person’s misdeeds like Judge Davies did when sentencing the two Rodney King beating cops when we get our misactions aggravated or enhanced by a judge when we get a sentence handed down. (Before they aggravate a sentence they should be made aware it will aggravate us and that will surely make it more adverse for society in the long run.) No more merely transferring offenders to a different office while letting them keep their jobs. They’re no better than anyone else. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like every person they step on.
         Other tabloid shows have disclosed other tragic tales of IRS shenanigans equally bad, most recently that I’ve seen, the September 24th, 1993 edition of KCAL-TV Channel 9’s American Journal. They showed a family who had all their property and assets seized under a rule the IRS uses called “Jeopardy Assessment.” The story went on to explain this family was victimized because one overzealous female IRS agent was not shown the proper respect she thinks was owed her because of her position. You see it turns out a family member disapproved of some of her methods of conducting an audit on their family-owned business. Basically it was a vendetta seisure clear and simple. After several people went bankrupted the family got their stuff back 5 months later, but only after American Journal got involved. And with cameras present they couldn’t even get the courtesy of an on air apology from an agent releasing their property back. They’re just damn lucky they didn’t run up against a true revenger, let alone a violent one. I know I wouldn’t even be happy with a mere apology. They’d owe me oodles more than that before than they’d be in the clear.
         From TV news reports in recent years I know of only one instance of extreme pay back due to IRS misdeeds. A man parked a dynamite loaded truck outside of an IRS office in, I believe, Northern California. I don’t recall if it blew up or whether it was discovered beforehand, but the careless-to-plan guy was arrested. What I find so surprising is that with so many being screwed over by uncaring and sometimes vendetta-prone agents, why are there so few incidents of violent revenge? We’re starting to see it more and more, whether it be disgruntled postal employees, angry litigants in civil court cases, or just others beaten down by the system in some way or another. And these weren’t even people with a terminal disease with nothing to lose. Of the hundreds of people I’ve talked to researching this book, more that a handful told me how they would act if they had a terminal disease with nothing to lose and what they said is not pretty. Let’s just say the Killeen, Texas massacre would be a minor news item in relation to their plans. There are a lot of angry ticking time bombs – with mere toothpicks holding back their escapement mechanisms – out there made so by some misbehaving branch of the judicial system. What will the future hold? That is the $64,000.00 question. As AIDS progresses along with no cure in sight, our society is getting more and more terminally ill people every day. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the odds are stacking up higher and higher every day to a big kaboom day. When will it happen? Will it happen? Do you think it will never happen? Hmmm. Wanna’ buy some swamp land? What’s that old saying – “Better safe than sorry”? Why aren’t they even concerned? Isn’t it time for more caution, compassion, caring, and most of all – fairness? Shouldn’t something be done soon before the patience of victims wears any thinner? Hmmm, Hmmm again. ’Bout time to proceed as if walking on egg shells isn’t it guys?
         By the way, the Torrance courts apparently use that People v. West deal quite regularly to help them screw over defendants. As Thomas was sitting chained in an area where defendants talk with their attorneys, another defendant with a different public defender and going in front of a different judge was being prompted under that same infamous case to also plead to something he was not guilty of and he too was disgruntled about it. This tactic is like a slap in the face – as if to say, “we don’t care if you’re guilty or not, we just want to ‘win’ a conviction and look good to our supervisors.” This needs to send a red flag up in the minds of everyone who is victimized. Even if you give in to the pressure tactics at the time (as Thomas did), when you get your power back later on make sure they don’t win. You’ve got the tools to do something about it. Don’t be the only loser! Make sure they don’t get a chance to slither off and gloat in the pleasure of a victory. Make them look bad to their supervisors. Make them turn red faced. See if you can get them chewed out good. They deserve that! Keep in mind that when political favors and pressure to clear dockets becomes involved, people fall through the cracks and new victims bubble to the surface. Make sure they understand that clearing dockets at any cost is not the way to do business and that it carries with it a heavy cost which they better be ready to pay. Wonder how soon it’ll be when the whole crime comes a tumbling back in on them? Do you think the end times are near? Should they be? Hmmm.
         Just think, they do this “in the interest of justice” in the name of “The People.” (And also just think, Judge Mills became the Presiding Judge in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown L.A. for awhile. Scary isn’t it? If the head honcho is doing it, just imagine what the subordinates are doing. Boy, something’s got to be done – fast!) Sometimes it seems as if justice and law are distant cousins not on speaking terms. Actually, it’s more than sometimes. Make sure the criminal justice system understands that it is suppose to be more justice than criminal. If they take you on make sure they know who and what they’re up against. Make sure they know that wrongly obtained convictions leads to wrong behavior later on. Make sure they know you’re the wrong person to screw over!
         Possibly worst of all, rather than take into consideration the past abuses Thomas already suffered from Judge Willett, the head Torrance DA took an extra personal interest to get him at any cost, whether a charge was valid or not. This was because he partially got back at them and publicly made them look bad for the 1985 Judge Willett improprieties listed above. If they were so concerned about his harsh tone of voice to Mrs. Reeves as an offense worthy of prosecution, then why weren’t they as concerned when threats were directed toward him by inmates? Is there any reason he should stand for selective enforcement? Is there any reason he should smile and just accept it?
         When lessons of history are ignored, they repeat themselves. You’d think they’d have learned their lesson with him before, but instead they went ahead and screwed him again. They are mighty lucky his revenge has always been limited to an intentional non-violent variety with no one being physically hurt. Maybe they were betting on that MO to continue. (They’re also damn lucky he doesn’t have a terminal disease with nothing to lose because who knows what he’d do if he did, he’s so mad about this case!!!) Others he’s spoken to have said they wouldn’t be so lenient under similar circumstances. This time though, his vengefulness is limited to legal methods of lashing out behavior which gives him the laugh’s last laugh’s best opportunity which is quite satisfying. He can speak out to others and write about the subject all he wants, as our First Amendment allows, and there is nothing they can do about it – no matter how mad they are; as he hopes they are!
         After this case was over and Thomas was transferred back to the fearful lower-level open dorm living prison all attempts to transfer back to the safer cell living one failed, despite Judge Mills’ written request. Only after he was linked to over $27,000.00 in damages to state property (razor blade cut up clothing) was he finally transferred to a proper and safe (two per cell) prison to finish out his time. This cost him an extra 12 days in prison and $48.00 of his personal funds he earned from his prison janitor job but it was well worth it. That’s all they got because that’s all he had. He purposely spent down his funds as much as possible knowing they were going to steal it. (The theft of this $48.00 cost them around another $4,000.00 in damages but that’s another story. Why they wouldn’t have anticipated that no one knows. Just suffice it to say that if requests to transfer him back where he belonged had not fallen on deaf ears they would have saved $27,000.00 plus the other $4,000.00.)
         It’s interesting to note that despite how easily and often inmates get their personal property disrespected by officers who think nothing of it, they sure get pissed when an inmate disrespects theirs back, even if it’s only state property and not their own personal property. And when they know you violated it because of their misbehavior, their pissed attitude is never at themselves, as it should be – but always at you for doing it. Take it from someone with such experience – it feels real good to see them pissed, knowing they know it was their misbehavior that brought yours to the surface, and knowing they know some people won’t accept their abuse of ours. While they may have the nerve to expect us to accept it – I wonder how accepting they would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Let them think about it for a moment. Because old ways of thinking and doing things has such a tenacious hook on people, it’s especially hard to change their views and get them to accept how wrong some of their behavior really is. There is just too much conformity to old ideas.
         It’s good to give them a taste of their own medicine though. We need a good feeling once in a while and they do deserve it. Just think of the fun we would have if we could find out where they live and then be able to get their personal property. Unfortunately, we mostly have to settle for state property. It still eats at them, especially if we let their superiors know of their misbehavior and what it then caused. Anytime we can get them chewed out for their misactions that’s a plus for our side, and in prison we need all the fun we can get.
         Anyway, back to Thomas’ victimization. All this crap could have been avoided had prison officials stuck closer to their own rules which emphasize that transfers are to consider the inmate’s safety along with societies, prison staff, and property. Due to their negligent actions, despite they knew of his innate nature of lashing back in vandalism he was shipped off where he didn’t belong and everyone come out losers.
         In December 1989, while still in prison, Thomas received a money order for $300.00 and a brief note from Mrs. Reeves. While it was $14.18 short of her debt with lost interest calculated forward to that point, he figures it was a good faith effort to make right her wrongs. She did not know the exact amount anyway, only descriptions of approximate loses she was responsible for. (The $48.00 public defender cost, lost wages for 3 days off work, copy fees for some papers from his file relating to this “violation” of probation incident, gas money to drive way down to Torrance for 3 court appearances, and lost bank interest where this money would have been had he not gotten cheated out of it.) Although she did not actually apologize and/or admit most of her wrongdoings, and therefore should not be considered forgiven, she apparently does realize there was unacceptable impropriety on her part and that satisfies Thomas’ dissatisfaction at her. This debt of hers only is considered paid in full and, despite the fact she remains unrepentant and an unindicted criminal slanderer and perjurer, he says his attitude towards her is now neutral and this case is considered closed. Everyone aware of her shenanigans should do likewise.
         In particular because Thomas got persecuted and prosecuted for that “extortion” letter so horrendously, she is truly lucky she settled her debt when she did. Knowing her lower intelligence ratio we’re sure friends and/or family are responsible for helping her, or convincing her, to take accountability for her misbehaving actions. She surely wouldn’t have done it alone.
         When Thomas got back to the state prison, and especially when he couldn’t get transferred back to where he came from, he talked about her with such hostility to anyone and everyone he could corner to vent his anger at what they did to him. So angry was he that on two separate occasions two different inmates, who were going home soon and wanting some extra spending money beyond the $200.00 given to released inmates, offered to be hit men for a certain fee. Thomas did turn them down because that is not his way, but he did give it some thought for a minute or two. O.K., maybe three; but definitely no more than four. Actually it turns out she may have been barely one step away from him saying yes to them. People should realize the volatility of a situation before they decide to screw somebody over. Even minor things can trigger someone off. One woman in Burbank was killed a few years ago because she testified against a guy over a minor rose bush dispute. And that was nothing compared to what Mrs. Reeves did. She can truly count her blessings that, after all she put Thomas through, she is still around with her health. Out of all offenders who have screwed Thomas, she is the only one listed here who has offered to settle her outstanding debt. Hopefully more will follow through in the future.

         In order to neutralize an offending person, some people have been known to observe the employee’s parking lot near early morning or late afternoon hours to see what car the problem judge, DA, prison staff member or whoever has. This person could be on bail or if not, a close friend or family member could do this. Once getting the license number, one can then go to the Department of Motor Vehicles and for a $5.00 fee the person’s address can be obtained. A form you fill out says that your name may be disclosed to the person you are requesting information on. This encourages some people to pick a not-so-bright looking person somewhere in line at DMV and offer them a few dollars to get the information. If the person asks why they can be told, “DMV personnel require a license be shown and I have none.” Now this other person’s name is on the request form. The defendant can spread the problem judge’s address around the streets (like posting it on street light poles and grocery store bulletin boards) and the jail’s inmate population when he goes in and even tell the judge he did so. I don’t believe he is breaking the law either as long as he doesn’t entice someone to do something illegal to the judge. To those who do this it is satisfying in several ways. One is, they didn’t break the law and can’t get in trouble. Another is, they can have the satisfaction in knowing the judge won’t like it. I know I’d be afraid if I did these kinds of abuses and others knew where I lived. Even though a person can tell the judge he knows his address and a lot more now do too, but as long as he doesn’t threaten him or her he has not broken the law. If someone else uses the address to do something illegal, that’s on them. That’s what can worry the officials. Imagine trying to arrest someone for possession of an address. It can’t be done. Just in case DMV changes its policy (as I believe they have done now) and won’t give out addresses of license numbers you supply don’t fear you are left out in the open. A determined individual could always follow a judge or other offender home and get his or her address then. Just keep in mind that many of these places give employees their own parking lots separate from where the general public parks.
         On August 7, 1996 news broke where a guy from Oregon legally put their DMV records up on the internet and apparently it was legal to get at the DMV office for a fee and no ID verification was required. I understand public outcry got it pulled down, but for awhile it was up there.
         After people are released from custody they could be inclined to observe the vehicle on an offending jail employee, then write the information back to inmate friends they left behind. If employees are pissed about their home address being passed around, it can only help if they understand it is only because they pissed someone off first! Clearly authorities need to shape up to help prevent these legal kinds of vengeful incidents from happening.
         Since these above paragraphs were written, the internet has exploded onto the scene. Anyone interested in finding out the address and phone number of a dirty culprit can type http://www.theultimates.com/white/ into their browser and there they will find The Ultimate White Pages with listings throughout the United States. Need a private investigator? Try http://www.pimall.com/ or http://www.kaleinvestigation.com/.

         During a brainstorming session at one VOCAL meeting I attended everyone was sitting around thinking up short scary phrases to send to an offender on a weekly basis. Even though many of these speak of horrible violence, because none of it will be carried out, it fits well within in the non-violent description of doing no physical harm to anyone. If some scoundrel was to receive one of these phrases once a week for a considerable period of time it could re-energize a level of fear in them and keep it going for as long as one is still mad. I like this idea for somebody whose dishonesty brought you a longer prison sentence than proper because it gives them back some of the additional fear you felt from others by being in prison that extra amount of time. Here’s what the current list entails: All dogs go to heaven; except you! Arf, arf…/ Trick or treat./ Every dog has its day, where’s yours? Arf, arf!/ Every dog has its day, have you had yours yet?/ Every dog has its day, do you ever think you’ll get yours?/ Every dog has its day, yours is coming. Arf, arf!/ I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down./ The tide has turned./ “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen,…” – Luke 21:36 (NIV)/ Careful, or I’ll pull an O.J. on you; poke poke, jab jab, slash slash – slllice./ It’s nearly all over but the shouting. Yahoo!!!/ Lullaby and good night./ Lights out./ Draw a picture of a dead body outline on the ground like police do at a murder scene and write an arrow pointing to it and say “you here.”/ Could I have a picture of you? I need a liner for my bird cage./ Have you read the book “Fade Away”?/ On separate piece of paper write one letter large and send each separate to spell a word or sentence./ I want your body parts, one piece at a time. – singed Jeffrey Dahmer./ I want your body piece by piece. – singed Jeffrey Dahmer./ I want to make an appointment with you. – signed Jack Kevorkian./ I’ve made an appointment with Jack Kevorkian for you. You ready? If not, get so pronto!/ You’d better make an appointment with Dr. Kevorkian soon!/ Jack Kevorkian wants YOU! Not Uncle Sam. Jack Kevorkian!/ Get your final affairs in order./ I’m not waitin’ much longer./ Your time’s up./ Bye!/ Do you know the song Bye Bye Birdie? Tweet tweet; cough cough – flat line................/ Have you said your good byes yet?/ The end times are near./ Is this the calm before the storm?/ This is the calm before the storm./ Have you read the book “Primal Fear”?. Have you been spay or neutered yet? Arf, arf!/ It’s showtime!/ Vengeance has many causalities; the guilty as well as the innocent!/ Write “you’re dead” in blood./ I put a pox on you./ I put a spell on you./ You haven’t seen bad yet, but it’s coming!/ Have you read the book “A Stranger is Watching”?/ Have you read the book “No Place to Hide”?/ I want to see you where Jimmy Hoffa is at./ What is your life cycle?/ The wages of sin is death. Don’t believe me? Check the Bible./ Where ever you are, there I am./ Roses are red violets are blue, I’ve got 5 fingers and the middle one is for you. I’ve also got 6 bullets and one is for you. Bang, bang!/ I have a bullet with your name on it./ What you reap you sew./ I’ve got a toe tag with your name on it and I’m going to do everything I can to attach it; good bye./ It’s over!/ The end!/ Let the games begin!/ Game over!/ What size body bag do you wear?/ I have a plan and you’re a part of it./ I’ve got a plan and you’re in it./ I’ve been waiting for you./ Hasta La Vista Baby!/ Those like you don’t die of natural causes./ Is it a good day to die?/ Are you ready to enter death’s domain?/ You should be skinned alive and eaten s l o w l y./ Would you like to be fish food? glub, glub, glub; mmm good!/ Do you know where Davy Jones’ locker is? You might!/ What do you suppose Davy Jones’ locker is like? Glub, glub……/ If you lie down with dogs you come up with fleas. Arf, arf!/ The countdown has begun./ Live and let die./ What do you want on your tombstone – pizza?/ Dead people don’t screw people over./ Have you seen the movie “A time to Kill”? I think it’s ’bout time we do. Bang, bang./ Have you seen the movie “A time to Kill”? I think it’s time to kill YOU. Bang, bang./ The bill collector is coming./ He who laughs last, laughs best. Ha, ha, ha!!!/ Do you know what a torso murder is?/ The fat’s in the fire and you’re the fat./ It’s closing time./ Good night – and good bye./ “There is a time for everything under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die.” – Ecclesiastes 3:1-2. You’ve already been born, so what’s left? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Die!/ Turn out the lights – the party’s over!/ Now it’s my turn!/ The party’s over – you’ve shot your wad./ Bang, bang – you’re dead!/ You will soon be flatlining. Beep, beep, beep, bee-----./ Have you mended your ways yet? You’d better before it’s too late!/ It’s toooo late!/ The day of reckoning has come./ People with unpaid bills have a habit of dying unexpectedly./ Expect the unexpected!/ The 11th hour has just begun./ Have you seen the movie “Sleepers”?/ It’s pay back time!/ You are coming to a cross roads./ There are fates worse than death. Would you like to know what they are?/ Have you planned your funeral yet?/ Let’s play hide and seek. You’re it!/ You will not believe what my first move will be./ I had a dream and you’re in it./ I had a dream and in it you die./ You’re a disease and I’m the cure./ When you can’t breathe you can’t scream./ I’ve got one nerve left and you’re on it./ “This is how it will be at the end; the wicked will be separated from the just and cast into the fire.” – Matthew 13:49-50. Have you said your good byes yet? Sizzle, sizzle. Ouch!!!/ You’re going to be dead a long time; get ready./ This is not over!/ I’m going to kill you and here’s how it’s going to happen…/ Would you rather be dead or un-dead? Sorry, you don’t have a choice./ Stay tuned – the worst is yet to come./ Caution; you may not be un-dead much longer./ Fate has a way of catching up with those who screw with me. Don’t tempt it!/ Graves dug in the middle of the dark desert were invented for people like you. You’ve earned your ticket./ If you were a holiday turkey your pop up timer would be up; indicating you’re ’bout done. Gobble, gobble!/ If an ass hole screams while being beaten and no one is around to hear him, does he make a sound?/ Barney loves everyone, except you!/ Do you want to die tonight?/ Death is part of the natural life processes./ I’d love to fold, spindle, and mutilate you./ I’m like an itch you can’t scratch. Ya’ can’t get rid of me./ I’m like an itch you can’t scratch. But don’t worry, you won’t be around long enough to get another itch./ If you’d like to die laughing I could tell you a joke. Have you heard the one about…/ If you’d like to die laughing I could tickle you. Ha, ha, ha!/ You’ve just been bumped down the food chain./ If I cut you up in little pieces do you think your total weight will be the same as the whole of you in one piece? Chop, chop./ Terror can fill any space./ Hell hath no fury like a person screwed over!/ Your bubble is shrinking!/ Don’t worry, I’ll say something nice at your funeral – NOT!/ Be afraid – be very afraid!/ The clock is ticking. Tick, tock, tick, tock./ Things have a way of coming around./ You may think this is a dream. No it isn’t!/ Nightmare yes; dream no!/ I know your off button and engaging it is quite gruesome./ Is this the end of the road or just another bump? Bet on the end./ Mark my word – you won’t cheat the grim reaper./ Let me extend my sympathies to your family ahead of time./ All roads lead to your death!/ THINGS TO DO: Kill (fill in the name)./ When you least expect it – expect it!/ Fasten your seat belts – it’s a bumpy ride ahead!/ There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Meow!/ Here piggy, piggy, piggy!/ A dirty trick is to send someone obituaries from the newspaper.

         One other lashing out that got publicity a while back is when Paul, a cocky bearded man in his mid 20s, phoned in a bomb threat resulting in the evacuation of a court complex for several hours. Needless to say, this caused quite an inconvenience and expense. This fits within this book’s framework of non-violent lashing out incidents because there never was, nor was there ever intended to be a real bomb. Its only intent was to inconvenience and make others mad as he had been so done by some improper deeds. To carry it a step further, some would gain personal satisfaction by calling in after its all over explaining why it was done and ending with something to this effect, “and I hope you don’t like it HA HA, next time don’t screw with us unfairly.”
         Carried a step further, imagine this hypothetical case. One could get a wind-up loud ticking Baby Ben alarm clock by Westclox or an egg timer and place it in a shoe box wrapped up to look like a bomb. Assume someone then placed it above the dropped ceiling in a public building’s elevator. If the “bomber” calls in to say there are several bombs placed in the building and where one of them is placed you could bet when someone checked and heard ticking it would be taken seriously. They’d spend a bundle of money and time searching the rest of the building. Some people would get a great deal of personal satisfaction knowing how mad authorities got when they carefully opened a “bomb” package by using all their expensive gear only to find a note saying, “HA HA the jokes on you for screwing us over and I hope you don’t like it.” Pleasure for the “bomber” would surely be enhanced if it were done to a building that was currently hearing a well-publicized case. If proceedings were delayed surely there would be local news coverage, and maybe even national if the case was big enough. Then when it got out as being only a joke and why and who etc., the original offenders would be left embarrassed and all red in the face. And that’s just what the doctor ordered for relief. Doctor Monkeywrench that is. And how do you spell relief? R E V E N G E ! ! ! Yea! Laugh, laugh, laugh.
         Some court houses search visitors when they enter and for that reason a big clock may look out of place and suspicious. A mini tape recorder wouldn’t though. One could record a ticking clock and use that. Turned up louder, it might be loud enough to hear in the elevator by anybody so it would be discovered without the “bomber” having to call in. At that point, the person may not even have broken the law because he or she never phoned in a bomb threat. I don’t know of any law prohibiting someone from leaving a clock or tape recorder, per se, laying around. Possibly, because the person’s intent of possessing a fake bomb was to make people fear for their safety, it could still be illegal on that ground alone. A person wishing to look for a legal way to get even would have to take responsibility to research the law to his or her own satisfaction and ascertain how any applicable laws apply to this deed. If the ticking isn’t loud enough to be found on its own due to a noisy environment, a person could call in and just say he hears some ticking at such and such a place and it should be checked out. In this instance, no illegal act as far as making a bomb threat was made. Merely reporting ticking probably isn’t illegal.
         In the first part of 1993 a suspicious pipe was found in an area causing evacuations and closing of a nearby freeway for hours, surely provoking great inconvenience. I don’t recall if this pipe was purposely disguised as a bomb or just a pipe that happened to be laying there. In any event, the point here is that if one merely screws end caps on an empty iron pipe 2 feet long or so and around 2 inches in diameter (easily available from a hardware store) and fashions a string to look like a “fuse” by sticking it out of one end of a small hole drilled in one end cap it is sure to raise some eyebrows. Maybe wrapping red roadside flares around the pipe with black tape will add to the illusion, or even a clock. By placing it in the right location it can cause a big headache without hurting anybody. For some, this can be like an aspirin to relieve a big headache we have because of what was improperly done to us.
         Then in September 1993 when a fake bomb was placed in a major Sparks, Nevada hotel and extortion calls were made media reports claimed loses ran up to over 2 million dollars. The fake bomber(s) in this case planned carefully and chose an especially busy weekend when a major convention was in town. This therefore then got him the most fun for his buck, and no one got hurt; just pissed off – exactly the philosophy preached here. Piss them off; but don’t hurt them! Obviously, this was just someone going for MIF with no thought of hurting anyone. And making people angry enough to get on the original perpetrators’ asses is clearly one of our goals we profess in these writings.
         Wonder when some angry person wishing to cause headaches to others will put a fake one right at rush hour during an important event. Maybe two or three at once on different freeways. Care to guess when? Care to hazard a guess they’ll have no idea why it was done and that they themselves are to blame? Wanna’ bet they won’t disclose that to the public when they are made aware of the reason?
         (Just for the record, achieving MIF isn’t that hard to do when it comes to law-enforcement people. Earlier in 1993 police come on TV news emphasizing their irritation and anger when a large sign asking for information on the identity of a recent cop killer was sprayed with graffiti in a way disrespectful to the police. The question I ask is if they can feel the irritation when property important to them is disrespected, can they now understand our irritation when property important to us is disrespected by them? Hmmm. And can they see the disrespect of their important sign only happened because they disrespected someone in an unnecessary and/or unfair way first? I like it so much because it is a simple non-violent way to irritate the hell out of them. I really got a chuckle when I saw their anger on TV at their inanimate property. And boy, the tagger got his MIF money’s worth out of that deal; probably more than he ever expected. I’m glad police now get to see how it feels to get property violated. I hope they now know how they make us feel when they violate ours. I hope more MIF will be dealt out by irritated people determined not to take it any longer if they don’t start showing the proper respect to others’ property. Let this be a tiny wake-up call.)
         (Another MIF came to mind when I heard a series of news reports around the first few days of October 1993. The person who stole a man’s car tossed the child pornography pictures he found in it out the window as he drove on. These pictures, which included a man and woman having sex with a baby, were found by some random person and turned in to police. This brought considerable news-media attention as police were all fired up to find the baby and two adults. For several days we were seeing on every news report the pictures, edited to show no sex acts, with hopes someone would identify them. Suppose some revenger out to antagonize police got a very much life-like baby doll and photographed themselves doing sex acts with it. If these were “thrown out” and found in a similar way, we could get another barrage of police hype into this “child molesting” case. After all the hype, another set could be sent to the news media showing them it was just a doll and the whole thing was just some inexpensive recreational “revenger fun” because, after being cheated out of our money by some unfair practices of the judicial system, we couldn’t afford more expensive, but less invasive, recreational fun. Surely no law is broken here – it is not illegal to “molest” a doll, is it? Actually, I stand corrected. A law was broken – littering. Actually, you can get around that by sending the pictures to police anonymously with a note saying they were found. Then all you did was lie; and being it was not under oath it probably isn’t a crime to do. Check though – maybe intending to deceive them is. Would it be “lying with the intent to deceive – by way of doll”? I think that’s funny! Wonder what they would do if, before you exposed you used a doll, you sent them another photo spread after you cut it up, stuck a knife in it, and poured catsup all over it? Would that rile them up or what? I remember one time when the Secret Service made sure my photograph in a photo spread stood out in such a way so the victims would be more apt to identify my picture rather than the other “similar” looking people’s photos. On mine alone, the overall background tint was different and that made it stand out. Because mine was doctored I would love to see them aggravated with a photograph kind of revenge to alleviate my still very active anger. Alternately, a real live overly young looking person of legal age (18 in California) could be made up to look maybe 12 or 13 in the pictures and that would get the polices’ dander up thinking an under-age girl was involved. Here no law is broken because the person is in fact of legal age. The adults would want to go to a theater arts make up shop to get some kind of make up material to make themselves look totally different so they could not be recognized when their pictures are spread all over the news. If one does not want to go to the trouble of disguising themselves they could always pay a couple homeless people a few dollars to act out the parts. I heard on news many police worked long hours overtime, which cost them a bundle, on this real child molesting case. One goal I’ve always liked to accomplish is to considerably cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate the perpetrator, or organization he, she, or they represents who has violated me in some way. This monkeywrench activity surely accomplishes that goal – and it may not even be illegal. Check for sure though if that is your concern!)
         When fake devices such as those mentioned above are found news reporters always seem to say no one has any idea why someone would do such a thing. Can’t they see that anger-provoking things of this nature where no one can be hurt are often meant to do just that by passing anger on to others by those who don’t want to be the only ones to feel angry they got inconvenienced in some way. At least they aren’t hurting anybody and for that they should be complimented. As more and more judicially-abused people are fed up with their treatment at the hands of their abusers, but looking for non-violent ways to get satisfaction, we’ll surely be seeing more tactics such as this one as time goes by.

         After Bob was released from a minimum-custody county jail facility he called authorities and supplied them with phony information 40 separate times whenever a TV newscaster asked for the public’s help in solving a crime. This was to lead police astray, resulting in cost and inconvenience. Why 40 times you ask? He did 40 days in jail, of course. This kind of lashing out can throw authorities way off the track. Let’s say they are requesting information about a suspect who’s picture is then shown on TV. One could give a phony location where he or she has been seen. Police could stake out this place for weeks if they want the person bad enough. One could have a laugh on them and get a chuckle when from a distance, one spies on them and sees them keeping a phony location under surveillance. Possibly a group of angry people could get together and individually call in a “sighting” of a wanted person in a given location. That would surely get authorities on that phony track.
         Carried a little further, if someone learns from the newscast about a kidnapping, a vindictive person could call and, while pretending to be the kidnapper, ask for a ransom. With no thought of trying to collect it, one could spy on police who are spying on the drop site. Later when they are starting to give up, they can be informed it was a pay back stunt to cost and inconvenience them because of some situation they did that left a mad victim in its wake. The range of variation to these kinds of tricks is infinite to a creative revenger. All of a sudden the lyrics to a Tony Bennett song comes to mind; “Ho, Ho, Ho, who has the last laugh now.” I wonder why?

         Rick was another victim harassed by the Secret Service. Knowing that the Secret Service is also responsible for protecting the President of the United States, and wanting to cause as much grief to them as possible, he sent a threatening letter to then President Jimmy Carter. This method fits well within the confines of our non-violent revenge because he had no intention of doing President Carter any harm whatsoever, in fact he even voted for him on both occasions. But the Secret Service didn’t know whether it was real and, as was verified on the NBC-TV show Secret Service, they take all threats seriously. One can only imagine the chemical analysis that letter was put through looking for fingerprints and other clues. This still falls in the category of a felony even though the only intent was to irritate the Secret Service and the President was in no danger at all. Surely Rick used gloves (and not the real thin surgeon’s kind of gloves where a fingerprint could still pass through either) and surely he did not use his own typewriter at home. Back around 1977 when this occurred copy shops didn’t have typewriters to rent by the hour so people would go to a store like Sears where typewriters were out on display and type their note that way, and for free too.

         Actually any threat to do a crime you have absolutely no intention of doing can accomplish your goals of aggravating any judicial organization back. One who sends threatening letters would be careful to not lick the envelopes and stamps so his DNA was not left behind. Often when these things happen they talk about working up a “profile” of the writer at the FBI’s lab in Washington D.C. How about a disgruntled and abused victim of the judicial system? We all know how many fit within that profile. How about working on ways of preventing these disgruntled attitudes to begin with? Isn’t that the smart way to deal with a situation? We hear the term “government intelligence.” Sometimes one wonders how the two words can be spoken together in the same sentence with a straight face. Maybe we can get them back on track and prevent future grief.

         If the Secret Service suspects that counterfeiting activity is going on, they will keep a person or company under surveillance for some time rather than just come in and confront them right at the start. This way, if other people are involved in the operation they will fall into the trap of spying agents and get ensnared in their tentacles. An innocent dealer of legitimate printing supplies that was on Lee’s long-distance phone bill was kept under surveillance for a month before agents, after seeing no suspicious activity, decided to question him about purchases Lee had made. With this knowledge, another way to cost them money and aggravate the hell out of them is to carefully place some suspicious counterfeiting paraphernalia in trash bins and other areas near printing shops where ordinary people could find the stuff and call authorities. The Secret Service, “thinking” that the shop is printing money will waste a bunch of time and man hours doing their usual routine of keeping tabs on the place before they confront the proprietor with questions. A carefully placed ha, ha call to the Secret Service after they do can release a lot of pent up anger and bring a smile to one’s face a mile wide.
         What paraphernalia you may ask? Obviously the best items to have would be left over plates, negatives, or even partially printed money from a real life honest-to-goodness counterfeiter, but that is unlikely. Even so, that would get their hooks in good. I’d laugh if some printer with no thought at all of passing counterfeit money, were to make up such a “paraphernalia bundle” just for the sole purpose of throwing it away in a carefully chosen place where it would be “found” by law-abiding types. In any event, that’s wishful thinking. More realistically, one could make multiple xerox copies of real money on a color copier. These copiers don’t make quality copies good enough to pass to alert people, but that is not the intent here. The only intent is to discard them. It is interesting to note that to be guilty of possession of counterfeit money as written in the federal statutes, one has to have the intent to defraud someone else. That is not the intent with these bills, therefore their possession may not be illegal. I’ll leave that to readers to check that for sure though if they have thoughts of doing this happy causing pay back. Do you suppose it’s a crime to merely irritate the Secret Service? Rather than “possession with intent to defraud,” would they call it, “possession with intent to irritate – us”? Hmmm. (Pause to laugh.) Anyone with a score to settle with the Secret Service knows what an E-ticket ride this one is.
         By the way, putting incriminating items in a business’ trash can so authorities can find it and waste time with surveillance activities is a great way to pay back those who rummage in your trash can in order to try to get something on you like they did with Lee earlier.

         Toward the last week of September 1993 two other incidents reported in the media caught my eye. In both of these, people used a fax machine to sent threatening messages to numerous others. In the first, the writer said that gang members were going to drive around with their lights off and when somebody flashed their lights at them they would shoot at them. On the other, gang members told police they were going to kill one white cop for each day that the two Rodney King beating cops, Koon and Powell, were allowed to stay out of prison pending their appeal. Clearly, this work strongly discourages violent behavior of any kind. But, on the other hand, if neither of these incidents was meant to be carried out, then their only intend was, obviously, to cause distress in others with no real danger of causing any actual injuries in the least. In that context, this would fit the philosophy of a monkeywrencher, and for that I say, more power to you – just be careful. I’m sure the senders would be careful to not use their personal fax machine from home though, especially when calling the police which is able to trace all incoming calls. News media said the fax to kill cops was sent from a Sav-On drugstore so apparently the call was traced. Some instant copy shops and even other businesses are set up with fax machines to provide such services or a personal fax machine can be used from a pay phone. Care needs to be taken in this case though because personal machines often print the owner’s phone number on the fax. Knowing many such businesses have cameras recording all patrons, cautious people will disguise themselves enough to not be recognized. (It was reported on news how that Sav-On had a camera and recorder near their fax machine but it was not operational and caught nobody.) Whatever these writers were mad about we do not know. The fact they made many law-enforcement people mad in return is known, and I’m sure these two celebrated their regain of power and its accompanied happy feelings for days to come. You HAVE the power!!! Have a beer on me guys. Fax, fax, fax – I mean laugh, laugh, laugh!
         Actually, with all the gang-related retaliations upon innocent rival gang members we often hear about, it’s surprising someone hasn’t retaliated against a cop at random to make their point against police brutality which has grown and culminated with the Rodney King beating on March 3, 1991.
         I say it’s surprising because I know how much anger there is out there because of the conduct abusive cops get away with scot free. And this isn’t something I’m making up. A headline I saw in the Sunday Daily News for May 5, 1991 backs up what I say. It said, “Few fired for excess force. LAPD dismissed 14 officers while throwing out 1,342 of 1,448 complaints.” This is tragic. We keep hearing about a code of silence among officers. Can’t the good ones see they are putting themselves in danger by letting their abusive comrades continue their deviant behavior? If random officers are targeted to revenge the deeds of bad officers, it may be the good ones that get it. They need to police their own polices deeds. Somehow we (all of us together) need to rechannel their deviant behavior into acceptable conduct.
         Why isn’t the public as outraged about this abuse as much as they were when a female babysitter was caught on videotape merely slapping a toddler that wouldn’t eat the food he or she was being fed? In that case, the hired babysitter was prosecuted and sentenced to jail and it made big news earlier in 1993 at how outraged everyone was at what she did. But what was it really? I bet those same outraged people have slapped their own kids a time or two to get them back in line. Why isn’t the public as outraged at the all-to-numerous police misdeeds as they were at this one babysitter? Do you think some people have their priorities mixed up or what? Do you think gentle nudging will get them back on track? No? Well, how about something more forceful? Ya, I think that’ll do it?
         The same article mentioned above contained a statement by Chief Gates on internal discipline. It said in part, “I am known as a strict disciplinarian. It has always been my goal to be fair but firm in the administration of discipline. One of the primary purposes of discipline is to rechannel deviant behavior into acceptable conduct. Very often the severity of a penalty is not the key to accomplishing this. The fact that discipline is swift and sure is frequently the most effective deterrent to employee misconduct. It has been my experience that a penalty can be mitigated; however, the certainty of discipline must never be compromised.”
         That’s sure different from what he says about casual drug users. A few months earlier he said, “casual drug users should be shot.” And just days before the above article he had harsh recommendations about parole violators, some of which are really trivial as we’ll cover in Chapter 4. Is this equal punishment for equally severe misconduct? Who will let them know this won’t be tolerated if we don’t?
         I say the most effective deterrence against law-enforcement misconduct is to make them aware revengers are on standby mode, ready to pounce out of the woodwork at the first sign of inappropriate actions. If they don’t feel there is any risk of retribution, aggravation, or embarrassment for their actions that certainly doesn’t have the deterrent effect that we hope for.
         And make no mistake, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block is not without guilt either in relation to the way he disciplines offending deputies. On May 10, 1991 he was interviewed on KNBC-TV Channel 4 News about a videotape, taken by deputies and released to the public by a disgruntled deputy, showing several deputies hitting inmates after a riot, which happened in the Mens’ Central Jail in April 1986. The tape clearly showed deputies hitting calm inmates as they crawled on their bellies out of their cells and into another nearby holding cell. Even with all that evidence, Block said the offenders were only “reprimanded.” To minimize their misdeeds he said there was “unnecessary force” but not “excessive force” because the officers did not intend to inflict injury. Boy, was that a white wash or what? They should be punished for inflicting any injury. Assault as defined in Penal Code § 245 does not require there to be specific intent to injure in order to be guilty of the statute. In this statute, an accidental infliction of injury is enough to constitute a commission of the crime. Block also defended his lenient treatment of the 5-year-old event by saying that no inmates complained about brutality at the time. That’s our fault for allowing them to get by with it. Have we defendants reached the point where we accept it as O.K.? Shame on us!!! DON’T include me in that group. If every past physically-abused victim would have acted up and made it known why, we would have put our abusers in their places long ago and there would have never been Rodney King like victims left injured and still suffering. Get with it people – these things only happen because we allow them to happen. All together now; that won’t happen any more – right? Right!!!
         Let this be an advisory to all good law-enforcement officers. You best all police your bad police officers’ deeds before somebody else does. I’ve never been physically abused by any judicial personnel in my life – lucky for them. Heaven help any organization who doesn’t punish the person that does cross that line with me in the future. Surely, others are equally fed up with physical abuse. Police yourselves folks! Don’t give us the opportunity to later come back and say, “we tried to tell you so.”
         I spoke a moment ago about the “code of silence.” Covering up their fellow officers’ known criminal activities certainly falls within this severe level of misconduct. In may 1991 it became newsworthy when a man won 6 million dollars from the Torrance Police Department because a drunken off duty officer had killed a teenage bicyclist and the department covered it up by never giving a drinking test to the officer and instead tried to blame the teenager. Being he was off duty when the incident happened the police department isn’t normally liable, but in this case, the jury ruled they were because they conspired to cover it up. Any one of us would get charged with second degree murder as is done now. But even after this, he is not charged and is still a cop. Someone should have got on the bandwagon and made them treat him just as one of us would have been treated. For future cases, let’s make sure we won’t be so lenient with any more perpetrators committing a double-standard offense.

         Another method I heard about to piss off federal law-enforcement people and many others is to pour diluted (very thinned out so it will go a long ways) waterbase paint from a large drinking glass into mail boxes. Alternately, one could use old dirty oil drained from a car or even obtained from a gas station’s storage bin. Can you just see the look on the attendant’s face when you ask for some old dirty oil? Surely they would give it away; after all, they have to pay to have it hauled away by a company that collects such stuff. Imagine the number of people that would be made angry. Someone else said drop a “why it was done” note in the mailbox to let authorities know the reason. Surely it would have to be wrapped in Saran Wrap or sealed in a plastic bag so it wouldn’t be soiled. After all, you want it read.

         Scott was mad when the district attorney overfiled charges against him, knowing full well they would never hold up in court. Beyond that, some charges were filed, that in the technical language of the statute, he wasn’t even guilty of to that serious of a degree. He should have only been charged with the less serious offense he did do. Scott feels the DA did it only to be able to ask for an excessively high bail, and also to have some serious charges to plea bargain with, knowing he could offer to drop what shouldn’t have been filed in the first place. With those charges he wasn’t able to plea bargain as good of a deal as he should have been able to if they would have been filed properly. His lashing out is outside the scope of this book’s non-violent nature and therefore is not reported here.

Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]







CHAPTER 3

 

Our sense of revenge is as exact as our mathematical faculty, and until both terms of the equations are satisfied we can not get over the sense of something left undone.

–Inazo Nitobe, Bushido

         While a person is in custody what kinds of things should authorities be more cautious about? One thing typical people who have not been confined need to understand is how small things can mean a lot to someone who has lost everything. Sheriff deputies in the county jails are particularly notorious, but staff members in state and federal facilities are sometimes a pain in the you know where also. What kinds of little things are too much for some extra sensitive people to just accept with the flow? Let’s see.
         But before we do, let me relay the encounter I had with Dr. Pamela Jackson, Ph.D, a black female psychologist, who was working for the California Department of Corrections at the time of my interview back in 1990. In talking about my extra sensitivities and unwillingness to accept injustices she had the nerve to say I should work on being less sensitive and accept these things, which she even admitted were not right with the system. I wonder if she would think the same if she was magically transported back in time 100 years to when women couldn’t smoke or vote, and blacks were much more repressed than they are today. Knowing the proper freedoms black women have today, would she be expected to accept those ancient practices so easily? Surely she would become an activist as others in that time did to bring black women to the equality they have today – and activism continues because much is still needed to change. It was once accepted to burn people at the stake if they did not follow established beliefs. These things changed only because some brave souls spoke up and said enough is enough. So get with it folks.
         This is the last seemingly accepted form of abuse our country still allows and encourages. We are the latest group, in a long list, of people who have suffered some form of oppression at the hands of governments. Apparently we’ll be the last too. I don’t believe modern society will ever again tolerate oppression of any other groups. Those of us who are at harmony with our recently acquired true inner strength wonder how otherwise good people can be so cruel. The fact of the matter is simply a lack of understanding on their part. It’s the teachings like this that place mankind out of balance. Why don’t more people see what we are doing to ourselves? When we are out of balance, humanity loses. As we have shown, judicial abuse is not an issue that only affects those that it is directed to. It is not a specialized issue affecting just us. Like all forms of prejudice and abuse, any threat to any of us is a threat to all of us – offender and non-offender alike. It’s time to stop, that’s all there is to it people! We need understanding, not aggravation.

         Pat, a slightly heavy set middle-aged man, who likes sweets was going to get his friend, Daryl’s, piece of cake at dinner which is only served twice a week. To even up the two dining room lines the line was split off at a point between the two and an officer made Daryl go in a different dining room. There would have been nothing wrong with letting him back step a few spaces so he could catch the next bunch going in the dining room Pat went in. But no, the insistent officer said go in this one or skip chow. That cost Pat an extra piece of cake he was eagerly looking forward to. To make matters worse, the cake issue he received on his tray was an extra small end piece. After returning to his housing unit he immediately went to the laundry bin where everyone throws their dirty clothes and ripped up 5 pairs of pants, one for each day of the week until the next scheduled day for cake. He said to himself, “that’ll show them to mess with the little extra pleasures I look so forward to.” There’s no call for officers to do petty things like that. By anonymously letting them and their superiors know what these things lead to, it may get them to think twice next time before they cheat somebody.

         Another time Duffee brought two slices of bread out of the dining room to save for a snack later with peanut butter. Dinner was particularly bad that night and he knew he would be hungry later. They were taken from him and thrown on the ground. What a waste of food, and what a vengeance it brought about. Noting the officer’s name tag he didn’t say a word. Arguing with the “all powerful” officers can lead to more retaliation from them later. Once you get on an officer’s shit list you’re in trouble. They are known to do spiteful things to inmates they aren’t particularly fond of. While it’s sometimes best to keep your mouth shut, that’s no reason to imply you can’t have your chance at tongue lashing them from a safe and anonymous distance. For those inclined to be quick tempered and assaultive a good tongue lashing and/or non-violent lashing out incident can be sufficient enough and/or necessary to lower their boiling point to a safe (non-violent) level below their point of losing control. A letter of reprimand again can be satisfying. Duffee quelled his anger by going to where cleaning supplies are stored and dumped two five gallon containers down the drain, “one for each piece of bread of my issue he took from me.” After that he was no longer mad and was comfortable able to continue doing his time.

         Another food cheating incident happened to Ben during one of the best breakfast meals they ever serve in prison. I think all of us looked forward to the regular Sunday meal of bacon & eggs, hash brown potatoes, toast & jelly, and cereal. On some occasions they cheated us with bread, even though the written menu called for toast, if some staff member was lax on his job to get it made in time. That was bad enough, but on this particular Sunday though, we saw our full issue was being dished out. All of a sudden they ran out of toast right before Ben got up to the serving line. He and several other inmates held back and let others go by to get regular bread while more toast was being made. This is not an unusual thing to do for inmates when they are waiting for a bigger or somehow better portion of something from a new pan or tray of food when it is put out. On this particular day though, when a Lieutenant monitoring the chow line saw the handful of inmates holding back he ordered them to either take their food with bread or skip chow altogether. Right after Ben passed by, toast was starting to be served again and this made him mad. He didn’t bitch at the time, knowing one of their tactics to screw over arguing inmates was to tear up their cells in a search, but that didn’t mean he was going to accept being cheated though. After he got out he got 7 jars of jelly (it was 7 days until their next bacon, eggs, and toast meal) and in 7 nice clean cars that he found in shopping center parking lots with their windows open he smeared the jelly all around on the interior upholstery and all and left a letter behind with details about the unnecessary cheated out of toast (which he liked with jelly) deal along with the name of the Lieutenant to blame.
         I would have never thought of that way to get back at a cheater. I really like this one. Thanks for your story Ben. You’re an honorary VOCAL member for life.

         Joshua was going through the processing procedures at the reception center at Chino. After about a month of waiting he was finally able to spend some of his money at the canteen. Along with necessary toiletry items he purchased a deck of playing cards. Due to an error on his sentence he had to go back to court. This required getting transferred back to the county jail. Upon his return to Chino he was required to throw all his items out because he came back on the bus with new booking prisoners. Routine policy calls for personally purchased soaps, shampoos, tooth paste items and the like to be thrown out even though they were purchased in a custody situation (county jail) and not brought from the street where something could be smuggled inside them. This isn’t right, even for new bookings (especially since the cheap stuff they give you to replace it is lousy and you may have to wait a few days to even get that) and something should be done to stop this practice, hint, hint…. Because Joshua bought his stuff there, he surely should have been allowed to bring it back in. The sentencing error wasn’t his fault. He shouldn’t lose out. The officer took his playing cards saying they cannot be brought in. Rather than throw them out he placed them in his desk, probably to use himself during moments of free time. That made Joshua mad. But as true revengers are, he didn’t stay mad long. Throughout his stay he tore up 52 pair of pants form the dirty laundry bin where inmates throw their clothes, one for each of his cards stolen from him. An appropriately written letter to the offending officer and his captain never changed the policy, but maybe that’s only because it would take a deluge of similar acts to get their attention and something done – hint again!

         While Carl, a white man, was going through the dinner chow line at the Birch housing unit at Chino a black inmate serving corn gave him a smaller portion than he gave other inmates. Carl reached over and helped himself. He didn’t take more than his allotted issue, only what he had coming. Later, the black officer monitoring the chow line went to Carl’s cell and literally tore it up. Acting way out of line he even threw Carl’s bedding over the tier. Returning the favor by tearing up laundry wasn’t enough for Carl. He and his friends got some laxative pills from the nurse during sick call. One is enough to loosen up the bowels, so vindictive Carl put 6 in the officer’s coffee cup. He didn’t make it to the rest room in time. When Carl heard that he laughed and laughed and so did his friends. The offender had the runs for several days. Carl wrote a HA HA letter back to him and dropped it in the mail box the day he transferred.

         Another incident happened to a group of dining inmates in Birch another night. With all the talking and other noise always present in the dining rooms 10 or so inmates way in the back did not hear the officer’s call to return to their cells. After he locked everyone else down these 10 were escorted to a small hot room without ventilation for over 2 hours as a punishment. Later we saw them come back to the cell block literally soaked with sweat and gasping for fresh air. Probably the abuse would have ended there but with some prompting the abused victims were talked into getting together and writing a letter to the warden with details and that either the offender will be punished and made to apologize on the loudspeaker or they were going to come back after they get out and do enough damage around town that they would wish they would have punished the offending officer when they had the chance. We never heard an apology, but the offender was not seen again. He was probably just transferred elsewhere and not punished at all. In any event, although they shouldn’t have been satisfied, the victims seemed so. They’re just lucky I didn’t get locked in that room. A true revenger would have added up the minutes and done one act of revenge for each of those minutes. Two hours could equal 120 splashed cars in and around the city of Chino (with a note left behind or sent so the blame can be properly placed) to someone favoring splashing. That officer would never even think of committing an offense again after all the chewing out he’d get from his neighbors of Chino.

         Other kinds of things that could make some mad enough to lash out may be:

         Getting your personal property ransacked in an uncalled for way during a routine search and not have authorities put it back the way they found it. This causes some inmates to do like kinds of actions to the authorities’ property.;
         Getting awakened in the middle of the night and be strip searched and have your property ransacked because something happened in another housing unit and officers or deputies are mad at everyone.;
         Getting a more severe punishment at a disciplinary hearing than someone else who did a more serious rule violation.;
         To be found guilty of a rule violation, even though you’re innocent, and because of it having to do extra duty or be restricted to your cell when others have recreational activities. Later when you’re cleared of the violation on appeal, authorities will not apply the punishment you’ve already done towards a future violation you may actually do or compensate you in some other way. When this happened to Philip, he purposely did something spiteful and costly, figuring if he’s getting punished for something he didn’t do, he’s going to be sure he does something – after all, he’s getting punished for it.;
         Getting your visit from family or friends loused up due to incompetent, lazy, or spiteful staff.;
         Getting strip searched and having a staff member look in every body cavity.;
         Being told you can’t eat breakfast because you’re 1 minute past the deadline. Even when you can prove the clock the officer used is 2 minutes fast you’re still not allowed to eat.;
         Having your few extra sets of clothes, beyond the routine issue taken, from you during a routine cell search. The purpose for having extra clothes is so in the event of a lock down situation you will have enough clean clothes. If a lock down happens on your regular weekly issue day you have to wait until the next week, rather than getting your issue as your rights in their rule book say you’re suppose to. If they take extra clothes we need to encourage them to make sure we get our issue when we’re suppose to.;
         To be cheated out of your shower every three days during a lockdown and then when you get your issue a day or two late you are overly rushed.;
         In some other way having our rights or privileges violated or have some other matter not taken care of in the most appropriate of way by a staff member either do to incompetence or on purpose.;
         To be lied to or about in some way.;
         To have a counselor, case worker, probation, or parole officer write up a progress report on you (often relying on inaccurate written documents in your file), after only a brief fact-to-face interview, for a judge, classification committee, or parole panel members. When doing so he or she will put more emphasis upon negative things you’ve done, often highlighting them with a marker, while only briefly (or worse yet, not at all) mentioning positive things you’ve done – whether in custody or before you come in. When they manipulate things to fit their own needs and only part of the information is emphasized they are being deceiving and when that happens no one wins – not even the offending party. Sometimes a higher-echelon official signs the final report for the court or whatever and adds his or her negative remarks while not even personally interviewing you. Often a few negatives will outweigh a great deal of positives you may have on your record when it comes time for an authority with power over you to make some kind of decision about your immediate future. A wrong decision where the few negatives are emphasized in place of a great number of positives often leads to negative lashing out actions in return, the opposite of the hoped for effect authorities expect their decisions to have. This is particularly likely to happen when an interviewer twists your words into a negative and you are made to look bad. That makes the victim to want to return the favor. It’s time they wake up and smell the roses before it gets any later than it already is. (It seems these scoundrels can turn anything into a negative. I once answered a probation officer’s inquiry truthfully that I occasionally drink socially. I could have easily hid that fact, but I saw no use to, it wasn’t a bad thing I thought. He then emphasized in a condescending way that an old probation report on me noted that I didn’t drink at all, as if to insinuate that it makes me a worse person because I, at age 37, was now known to take a drink once in a while. How rude of him. Why make even proper and legal things seem as if it is a negative thing? I know I was offended to be nit-picked on about such an unimportant thing and it affected my behavior toward the judicial system for some time. They need to worry more about things that really matter. They need to worry more about what judicial misactions they commit can lead to later on.);
         To have that person writing the report misquote you or report the events or facts inaccurately or out of context, either accidentally or on purpose. Sometimes staff will go by written reports as gospel truth without checking the facts first and won’t believe you when you try to correct them because you’re just the “offender” and in turn less trustworthy. Sometimes their misbehavior happens because they are so back logged they simply find it easier to take some short cuts at our expense. And if that isn’t bad enough, they sometimes, at their whim, will flip-flop and disregard a written report that has good statements about you.;
         To have someone deny an important document in your file without reviewing it.;
         To have him or her show considerable bias if your philosophies, beliefs, or life style doesn’t match his or hers.;
         Having to wait a month to buy necessities at the canteen because they are slow processing paper work even though you arrived with cash in your pocket from the county jail.;
         As a new arrival having to wait a few days to just be given tooth powder (instead of the better tooth paste), tooth brush, comb, and soap which should be given to you immediately.;
         Having to use toilet paper sparingly because getting your allotted issue is sometimes hard.;
         Getting punished for tearing up a bed sheet in small strips to use as toilet paper because you needed it right then and you couldn’t get your issue you were entitled to.;
         Having your cell’s toilet, sink, and/or light fixture defective to some degree.;
         Having officers purposely scream loudly over the P.A. system late at night to keep you awake and irritate you. (I remember the L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputies in the Central Jail back in 1973 were particularly notorious for committing this offense and I’m mad to this day I allowed them to go un-revenged. Here would have been a great opportunity to use acid splashing with letters back to the splash victims as to why. Had Sheriff Sherman Block been barraged with complaints he surely would have gotten on deputies’ asses to knock it off or else. If an inmate has a friend on the outside do it he could get the benefit of the changed deputies’ behavior and wouldn’t have to wait until he was released to take care of it.);
         Missing the canteen for an extra week even when your name was on the list because a non-caring officer failed to look close enough and refused to correct the mistake when confronted with it.;
         Getting transferred to a different housing unit or even institution when you’ve become somewhat comfortable and settled in. Sometimes these moves are done totally for the convenience of the institution staff, with no regard at all for the inmate’s desires or the displeasure it may cause. If you have a personal TV, allowed at some institutions, then get transferred to one that doesn’t allow them you’re forced to send it home at your expense. Later, if you are successful in getting transferred to one that does allow them you have to buy a new one sealed in the box directly from a prison-approved store because you can’t get the one you previously bought in prison sent from home.;
         To get transferred from institution to institution to effectively shut you up if you go through proper procedures to complain about some occurrences on a regular and often basis.;
         Getting locked down and cheated out of your issue of recreational time when somebody else did something wrong. If it’s a work day when you come off of lock down they expect you to go right to work for them just like nothing had happened, rather than get some of your make up recreational time in that they owe you.;
         Getting a smaller issue of food you really like than someone else gets.;
         To be given sour milk or some other defective food and not have staff exchange it.;
         To have your extra apple or orange (given to you by a fellow inmate not wanting his) taken from you when you exit the dining room because you are only allowed to have one. What is so anger provoking is that if they are short on a food item they won’t substitute a proper replacement or make it up another day.;
         To have them disregard their own written rules and policies when they make decisions about us if it fits their purpose, but then stick to them right to the letter if that fits their purpose. It’s appalling the things they’ll come up with – some quite far fetched, others rather subtle – to justify a decision about one of us if they want to deny us something they shouldn’t have denied or force something they shouldn’t do, or not do something they should do. Sometimes they appear to purposely do the opposite of what we want, then wonder why we act in the opposite of the hoped for way. Why aren’t they more careful and concerned that they don’t release a can of worms? (One brazen Program Administrator at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi came right out and said he does the opposite of what we want if we break a prison rule. I, of course, did the opposite of what they wanted when they disobeyed their own rules to my disfavor. Mr. Kitchell, the offender I speak of here, was pissed too – but I wasn’t. How’d ya like what I did Kitchell? Ya lost a lot of laundry didn’t ya? What’s that; $27,078.00 worth? Cool. Yuc, yuc!!! Like I’ve been known to say, nothing satisfies an anger like a good ol’ fashioned dose of vandalism – call it “vandalism therapy” [VT]. It’s the sterile needle in the arm of a vandalism junkie. A vandalism fix so to speak.);
         To be told we have to accept something even if they make the mistake. I was at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi when one of the Associate Wardens was brazen enough to tell us new inmates during an orientation session that if they error on our time credits computation we have to accept it. Hogwash! Bull cocky!! WE DO NOT!!! Although we may have to do the extra time before the mistake is corrected, that’s no reason to let them slither off with a victory under their belts.;
         To be put on non-credit earning status (C-Status) for weeks just because you were late for work one day. Now you’re made to continue working throughout this time even though you are getting no good-time or work-time credits off your sentence for it.;
         To be put in Ad/Seg (the hole) after arguing with your hot-headed boss and after the Program Administrator determines the boss was totally to blame you are let out, but not compensated in any way and the boss goes unpunished and even unreprimanded.;
         Or having an officer get up in your face and give you an uncalled for tongue lashing. This last instance is particularly distressing. Imagine being “just an inmate” and talked to in this belittling way. You want to speak up so bad, but know you better not because of your “inferior” place as an inmate. Having several brutish officers looming over you makes you feel worse. The wise person is able to keep his mouth shut knowing he’ll get his turn in his own way in a method he has control of. He just has to make sure he gets the offending officers’ names from their name tags.

         Some of us are particularly sensitive to these kinds of misdeeds and our egos drop to the bottom. Increasingly, more and more are discovering the uplifted ego they get from non-violent costly conniving vengeance. It’s their way to put the “all powerful authorities” in their place where they belong. And when an official knows of a person’s extra degree of sensitivity to such matters and freely chooses to do them anyway, he is even doubly responsible for the repercussions that may transpire.
         One wonders why this tendency to even the score should surprise them so much. After all, we keep hearing professionals warn us that when kids are victimized in some abusive way they are more apt to grow up and become an abuser in return as a way of regaining the loss of power they felt at the time. They like the feeling of power over others to alleviate the feelings of powerlessness they once had. They like the opportunity to heckle others to return heckling they once had inflicted upon them. And this, in fact, is exactly how we abused revengers feel. This is an exact analogy to our regaining lost power our victimizers took from us by their misdeeds. We want to feel we have the power to bring them to their knees. We want to heckle them back. We want to have our power back. We want some control over something. They know what previously abused and now grown kids are prone to do. So why do they continue to abuse us and then not expect us to grow into it? Why can’t they see how today’s judicially-abused person will likely become tomorrow’s judicial abuser? Can they be that stupid? Can they become smart? Hmmm. Experts agree we draw “social maps” based upon our experiences in life and tap into this storehouse which becomes a guide by which we later live. What does this map look like to a person who has been abused? Need you really ask? Remember, my dear judicial-abusing “friends,” you are suppose to be doing things that will decrease undesirable behavior in people, not increase it. Got that? For the sake of all of society – I hope so.

         That above incident of having an officer get up in your face happened to Terry while in sheriffs’ custody. The deputy almost had him bowing down to him. After Terry got out he went to a part of the county where sheriffs had jurisdiction. He then placed 14 (one for each day he was in custody) fake crime in progress calls to them to get them to respond. After he was done he wrote to the offending deputy and the head Sheriff for the county to let them know that they didn’t get by with how they treated and talked to him. Not surprisingly, he was no longer mad.
         The L.A. County Sheriffs are noted for being quite spiteful to someone they think needs an “attitude adjustment” to use their words. That is a phrase they throw around much too easily. If an inmate has something done to him under that pretext a red flag should immediately raise in his head. This should be a signal for him to not simply forget the incident when he or she gets out. Abusive deputies need to have their attitudes adjusted. Knock them down a rung or two. Don’t let them loom over you like an oversized reptile from a ’50s monster movie. Don’t let them talk to you or treat you in a condescending way.

         And, by the way, Marshals in the courthouses aren’t too far behind sheriffs when it comes time to deal out abuse. I remember while sitting in the main downstairs holding cell at the Torrance courthouse a talking inmate slow to be quiet after being told to do so by a Marshal was chained up in an uncomfortable way with his hands wrapped up for hours as revenge for talking on for just a few extra seconds. If that would have been me I would have made sure I got the offending Marshal’s name and then come back and put a small scratch on numerous nice cars with a note telling why and that the offender had better apologize publicly by name on a billboard near the courthouse where other employees can see it and he would be embarrassed. Additionally, he would have to donate one paycheck to a certain charity of my choice. I wouldn’t make anything on the deal but at least the offender would lose money and surely get a bunch of chewing out. He may not give in at first, but eventually he would be talked into it by others tired of getting their cars scratched.

         Physical abuse while in custody is a lot more prevalent than reported in the news media. Many inmates never report minor injuries and just forget the issue once released. If everyone that receives even minor uncalled for injuries were to do some kind of stunts like we report here and follow through with proper documentation to the right people there would be pressure to be more cautious. The way it is, physical abuse may be investigated when it’s reported and usually all that comes out of it is a promise they’ll avoid it in the future. That’s little consolation for the recipients of even minor abuse. If there is any punishment it is usually only a slap on the wrist in relation to what we would have gotten if we were to do the same thing to someone. That is something we should never stand for. Often times, physical abuse stories told by inmates aren’t believed leaving the abused person no choice but to take care of the matter in his or her own way if he or she is unable to just forget it.
         I’ll never forget the time I was sitting on a long hallway floor at the Los Angeles County Central Jail while awaiting transfer to Wayside Max (aka Peter J. Pitchess Honor Rancho) later that night. We were told to answer up with the last three numbers from our wristbands when our last names were called. The trouble is, the deputy calling out our names was so far down the hall from our spot in line that he was hard to hear. When a mentally-slow inmate near me didn’t respond fast enough to his name being called more than once a nearby deputy rudely and loudly yelled at him. This startled him and in a scared move he put his hands up to shield his face. This then caused the deputy to pounce on him apparently jumping to the conclusion the guy was raising his hands in a fighting position. Soon, two others deputies who liked to exercise their muscular bodies were upon him in a way that seemed obvious they were enjoying it. I just wish I would have had a video camera to catch the attack. The trouble is, deputies working in the jails know they don’t have that to worry about and in turn aren’t as carefully acting as they should be. This is where we have to make it clear we won’t tolerate it any longer under any circumstances. If taking names and reporting it doesn’t get you proper compensation then it’s up to you if you want to elevate it into true revenge levels. I know if that was me being attacked and the offender went unpunished by supervisors I would take matters into my own hands. After all, I once suffered a battery conviction and punishment for barely touching somebody, and I’m not about to accept similar kinds of treatment from any law-enforcement official under any circumstances. Those above deputies have no business being deputies and any group of inmates witnessing such behavior should exchange phone numbers so they can report it further after they get out or do something to put enough heat on the offenders that they will be forced to punish themselves in order to avoid further embarrassment.
         In any event, for those on the streets, it sure couldn’t hurt to keep cameras and pocket audio tape recorders handy in order to document police tactics we see when we are out and about on the streets. One news reporter asked a city official what recourse Rodney King would have had if a video tape had not been made. His response was, “his only recourse would have been to file a complaint with the [police] department,” which would have accomplished little because falsified reports would have worked against King. The point is, that is not his “only” recourse. He would have had the power of revenge as anybody has. But, how many other cops have gotten by with similar kinds of abusive deeds? Why did we let them? Are we going to any longer? You better say no! Let’s monitor police activities with audio and video equipment. One sheriff deputy interviewed on TV after the Rodney King beating complained how video cameras often pop out when they respond to calls. Things like this keep them in check. They need to know somebody is keeping them leashed and heeled. Arf, arf! Remember, the judicial system has long been a fat cat that owes its plumpness to its monopoly, to a lack of checks and balances, and to the fact we’ve allowed it to prosper. Maybe we can help slim it down a few pounds.

         On the subject of dogs, William was stood against the wall by Deputy Gordon at Wayside Max when he was talking in the line going to dinner one night. As if that indignity wasn’t bad enough (this is something they often do), because William’s height matched the height of a large painted mural on the wall of a dog, he was told to touch his nose to the wall right to the nose of the dog and remain there for 10 minutes as other inmates passed by on their way to chow. Later that night he had a fellow inmate with artistic skills draw a picture of two fully uniformed male deputies but with the heads of dogs looking at each other in a sexy way and one saying to the other “let’s rub noses.” He then typed below this, “Officer Gordon at Wayside Max embarrassed me by making me stand up against the wall nose to nose to a dog for 10 minutes for others to see and laugh at so now I do this to embarrass him back.” He went up to the Santa Clarita area where Wayside is located and on a hot sunny day glued xerox copies of this picture and message onto the hoods of 10 cars, one for each minute he was unnecessarily embarrassed, parked in shopping-center parking lots. I wonder how officer Gordon felt? Wonder if he realized he bit off more than he could chew? Wonder if his nose was wet and cold? Wonder if he slobbers a lot? Arf, arf. (Laugh time, Pause again.) Sometimes the excitement and comedy of revenge is so overwhelming I can hardly contain myself.

         On another occasion while sitting in a long hallway deputies passing by asked a bandaged up inmate if it was L.A.P.D. that did it. When the inmate answered yes the deputies laughed about it as if it was all a big joke that he got beat up. It would have been nice to get their names so some fun revenge joke could be played back on them. These are exactly the kinds that need to have the laugh embarrassed out of them.

         In 1987 I witnessed L.A. Sheriff Deputy Copper forcefully grab a young and small inmate by the wrist because he had put his hand to close to Copper’s face when he showed him his wristband during the evening count. He was dragged off to another room and we saw no more of him. Days later I ran into him by coincidence at another jail facility and asked him what happened. He said Copper locked him in another room and slapped him around a bit and then warned him not to tell. He was transferred to another housing unit so he couldn’t talk with the other inmates who saw him grabbed and dragged off. Out of fear and knowing he couldn’t make bail he let his abuser slide by.

         For future reference, just in case you find yourself in a similar situation, remember that sometimes beating deputies will take their name tags off so they can’t be identified. Chances the ones that escort you to the place you’ll be beat will not though. Get their names and make sure they get jacked up after you get out. Also make note of the section of the jail you were taken to and the time and date. Records can be checked as to who was on duty at that place at that time. Make a distinctive scratch in the wall’s paint too so you can prove you were in that particular cell.

         One inmate I talked to in county jail told me he bit a police dog after it bit him after he was handcuffed and not resisting arrest at all. He was then charged with biting the dog and got an extra 6 months added to his sentence. That’s like if a cop hits you first and you hit back you get charged with assault. That crap ain’t going to go and he was going to let them know. He told me he was going to throw rat poison laced hamburger meat over fences in that neighborhood to kill 6 dogs (1 for each month). I tried to talk him out of it but I don’t know if it did any good or not. Later I heard that in Northridge a similar kind of crime did happen and he was surely out of jail by then. This goes to show how out of control police are and how they seem immune to punishment. He should have been able to charge them for the attack on him when he was cuffed and calm rather than they charge him.
         Although I hope he did not poison the dogs – somebody did. Someone hearing of the incident on TV could still take advantage of the situation though. That person with a score to settle could anonymously write to the dog owners and claim responsibility for the deeds while explaining the dog abuse he suffered at the hands of improper-acting police and their dogs. This form of revenge clearly falls within our guidelines of non-violent revenge provided he is not the person who did the poisoning. He is merely making people think police are to blame and the media-advertised embarrassment is put on their doorstep. And that is one goal, and in fact a duty, we like to accomplish – to make them look like buffoons with big time egg on their faces; to ruffle their feathers; to make them lose face; to simply have fun and get the last laugh. In fact, anytime a revenger takes responsibility for something he or she didn’t do it not only can quell an anger by making the offender think their actions were revenged, but it also can throw police way off course as to who the real person who did the deed is. In this case, it could also bring media attention to the travesty of unnecessary dog biting. And that in itself is fun. I’ve been known to do that on more than one occasion. Authorities get real pissed when someone revenges their bad behavior even when they know they did wrong. And that enhances the fun too. “Fun Enhancement.” That’s what I’ll call it. They enhance charges against us for various reasons. We can enhance the fun for us for various reasons. Ya, boy!

         When Korean grocer Soon Ja Du got probation for second-degree murder around the same time a man in another court was sentenced to county jail after he mistreated his dog several angry people I overheard commented that if they were that man, they would go on a dog-killing spree in their neighborhoods. Of course, such behavior is outside the bounds of this discourse on revenge, but it goes to show the anger at judicial inequities that is out there and how some will purposely act out in opposite ways to what judicial personnel are trying to do. Like I say, more caution needs to be shown so that a person not otherwise “dangerous” – or just merely a nuisance – is not actually made so.

         One angry inmate told me that if former Police Chief Gates can have a personal opinion and openly express it to media reporters that “casual drug users should be shot” he surely can have an opinion that cops who beat on us should be beaten in return and ones that are too quick to shoot to kill others should be shot in return. But, of course, that form of revenge is outside the scope of this book’s non-violent philosophy so therefore I will leave that up to each individual reader.
         Something should be done with these misbehaving culprits though. In far, far too many cases police shoot to kill when shoot to injure and stop would have accomplished their goal of taking the suspect into custody and assuring their safety just as effectively. I overheard one officer brag to a fellow officer he always goes for the kill because he knows he has the backing of LAPD “policy” and the law to back up his kill. That’s a horrible way to think. Just because you have the law on your side doesn’t mean it is morally right and proper to take a person’s life when another viable option is clearly just as effective and safe for the nearby public – like aiming for a non-vital part of the body. And they think we’re sick, vindictive, and inhumane when we seek to obtain retribution in non-violent ways? What do you call it when a person will happily go for a kill despite other alternatives just because he is doing it within approved “policy” and will garner high praise for marksmanship from his fellow workers who see it all as just a game of skill? Do you get the hint somebody’s priorities are a little out of wack? Do you begin to see why police get shot at by those who don’t respect the value of human life because they view police officers as having that same lack of respect? If police want the respect of life and safety they currently are lacking, don’t you think they had better start showing respect for our lives first? Hmmm.
         Because police get targeted at random whether they are the good guys or the bad guys, maybe the good guys – which end up suffering on account of the bad guys – who have the proper respect had better start educating those kill-happy guys that alternate behavior will be better for all concerned. Let them know that, despite training to the contrary, criminals are people too. Don’t let them de-personalize their actions of “killing” a “human being” by adopting kinder words and calling it “neutralizing” a “problem.” Face up to it, whatever glossy words are used when referring to us, we are still living breathing personal human beings. Get with it guys. There are a lot of dead people that were killed “legally;” but not morally – and surely unnecessarily. Wake up to the value of life; of all life – criminal and non-criminal alike. While actions of this nature garner praise and glory from peers in the law-enforcement community, unforeseen consequences are also bubbling to the surface. Rather than honor their actions with “outstanding achievement” awards, let’s instead put them on a list of individuals who need to be leashed and heeled. Criminals are people too. People! Get it? Not inanimate or faceless objects to be treated as chattel.

         One day when I was at Wayside Minimum I had the opportunity to sneak into the kitchen for what I expected would be some better tasting food. Unlike officers in the state and federal prisons, deputies in the county jails get different better food that is prepared separately from what inmates eat. But all of it is prepared by inmates. Just as I was ready to gulp down some tasty morsels an inmate kitchen worker warned me off. You see, it turns out the deputies’ food gets pissed in on a regular basis and apparently has for years before this inmate arrived. Let this be an advisory to anyone entering the county jail system. Don’t eat the deputies’ food, no matter how much better it looks and smells. Just don’t tip deputies off though – they deserve it. Especially when we hear from Reginald Denny defendant, Henry Watson after he was released on October 20, 1993. He couldn’t eat some of his meals because deputies would spit in his food. (He was in 3100 high-power maximum security and fed in his cell.) They treat us like shit (spit in this case), so we treat them like piss. Piss for spit? Ya think it’s worth it? Ah, it’ll do in a pinch, don’t you think? I think that’s funny though. Here we’ve been doing it right under their noses for years and there’s no way they can stop it except prepare their own food or eat what the inmates eat. Pause now while I do some private laughing. Yuc, yuc, yuc, yuc! Boy, is revenge fun or what? : - ) Give them some yellow water for me guys. Yuc, yuc, yuc some more. Although I haven’t been back to L.A. County Jail since 1989, I’m sure individuals with VOCAL style anger levels are carrying on the tradition.

         The paragraph several up from here appears much as it did in my preliminary sample draft of 1988. Notice how I mentioned that physical abuse doesn’t get much media coverage. That, of course, was long before the Rodney King police-beating incident which is something we must cover in more detail now that physical abuse by those with power over us is finally getting the exposure it deserves. In fact, police corruption at all levels is being uncorked more and more every day. The very serious New York Police Department shenanigans were reported on Nightline on October 8 & 14, 1993; Day One on October 11, 1993; and 60 Minutes on October 17, 1993.
         Former Los Angeles County District Attorney Ira Reiner hit the nail right on the head when he explained the acquittal of the four cops that beat motorist Rodney King in their first trial in April 1992. He told us that juries are reluctant to convict police officers because they tend to believe cops. They’re sympathetic to cops because they know they have a tough job and are somewhat forgiving to them. Isn’t that an awful philosophy? I want someone to be sympathetic to my feelings too. Don’t you?

         The Reception Center at Chino has two facilities where newly-committed inmates are housed. A more-serious offender is housed in cells within a concrete structure. They remain in these cells 24-hours a day except for 3 meals a day and only one hour of yard activities and showers 3 times a week. Another separate housing area contains wooden structure open dorms. Inmates have yard access and TV every day for a considerable portion of each day. This area is for less serious offenders. Obviously time is a little easier to do here. Several years ago some inmates set a fire in a wooden structure building. Since this time anyone with arson on his past record, no matter how slight, is housed in the much more restrictive less-pleasing cement cell block structure. John’s past and current record contains non-violent crimes. He would have been an obvious candidate for the lenient facility except for the fact that when he was 9-years-old, some 28 years before, he and some friends accidentally set a fire in the closet of a school building while sneaking a cigarette. This minuscule and accidental incident kept him in the harsher and harder to do time cell house. Needless to say he was pissed. This was unfair. 12 weeks here instead of where he should have been placed wasn’t right. Every chance he got he would go to the laundry bin and rip up pants, shirts, coats, sheets, or blankets, whatever he could get his hands on – and he was still mad. He would be heard saying, “they should have been more concerned with my current attitude towards vengeful costly behavior when wronged and less about a minor accidental fire years before. It’s not right to punish us all for what someone else did. Those people probably didn’t have arson on their record before. It was an isolated riot type of incident that just got out of hand with probably non-arson kinds of inmates involved.” He claimed he never wrote to the officials after he left. If he and others would let them know of similar unfair actions it may prompt and actually force a policy change.
         Another thing that ticked inmates off was when one of the 3 yard visits was canceled and never made up. 3 wasn’t enough the way it was. Various people report costly lashing out from things like that. Authorities need to take note. Things like this are clearly not wise.

         One day no one got their issue of 2 spoonfuls of sugar for breakfast because the main kitchen was out. The next day Tracy thought he should get the 2 we missed from the day before, a total of 4 for this day, to make up for the 2 missed. He didn’t and it cost Chino 2 gallons of liquid disinfectant (one for each spoonful of his issue he got cheated out of). The gallons were happily dumped down the drain.

         A Lieutenant on the level 2 yard of the prison at Tehachapi was searching Manual’s locker during a periodic property search which is something we all go through on occasion. With Manual looking on the searching Lieutenant was careless with some of Manual’s carefully done hand-drawn art work. Manual spoke up forcefully but still courteous to please be careful with his drawings. This angered the Lieutenant because Manual approached too close, something inmates aren’t suppose to do when officers are searching their property. We all watched in anger as the Lieutenant, while sitting on Manual’s lower bunk, purposely leaned his hand onto the papers which were on top of the bed and scrunched them as he rolled his hand around. Manual, who happened to have access to narcotics he got from a visitor made a deal with in inmate office worker from the Lieutenant’s office to steal some sensitive papers in exchange for some dope. He then had a friend write to the warden (that way his handwriting isn’t on the letter [remember this trick]) telling him of the Lieutenant’s disrespect of his property and that he is doing likewise to them some of their important papers and if the Lieutenant doesn’t make it up he is subject for more harsh (unspecified) treatment. Manual never got confronted on the matter but it is noteworthy that the Lieutenant was soon transferred somewhere else and none of us was mad any longer.

         Kemp, a boyish looking science-minded individual, revealed that when he was mad he would teach people how to write letters with invisible ink. All mail is opened by staff and possibly read while outgoing letters have to be left open. A hidden message can escape detection by staff’s eyes. By taking a bent paper clip or some such item and dipping it into the juice from an apple, grapefruit, lemon, orange etc. one is able to write a message with it. After it dries it’s invisible. The recipient can make it visible by heating the paper. Hold a match near it or iron it like you iron clothes are 2 examples. The “ink” is then burned and becomes visible. Normal censor procedures are then defeated. Kemp is not violating a prison rule either as long as he doesn’t encourage illegal behavior. He is only repeating what he learned in a grade-school science project book years earlier. Actually, prison staff didn’t even seem to care. Even though they were aware he was teaching this method of secrecy to other inmates, they never once spoke to him that he should not do it any longer.

         One last Chino case is noteworthy. Ray recently got released from the prison system and is now on parole, but our story on him begins when he was a new commitment at the Reception Center at Chino. People remain there only a couple months and then are transferred to another institution to do their time. A few days before inmates transfer they turn in all their personal property so it can be boxed up and ready to go. Due to a long holiday weekend Ray had to turn in everything on Friday even though he wasn’t leaving until Tuesday. To keep busy in his cell he studied hard on personal studies and took a lot of notes from books that were available to inmates. He wrote one page of some very important (to him) notes after his property was turned in. These were destroyed by an officer on the day he transferred. The officer told him he was suppose to turn everything in ahead of time and he wasn’t allowed to take anything now. This made him real mad because he had no back up copy and no way to replace what was written, nor a way to reacquire the information again. What was extra anger provoking was that officers would bag up last minute mail inmates received since they turned in their property, but because this wasn’t mail it was thrown out. From that day forward until the day of his release, over two years later, he tore up one pair of pants or two shirts for each day he was without his notes he shouldn’t have had taken in the first place which could just as easily have been bagged up with the mail with very little effort by officers at all. It was only one piece of paper. Even after this he was still mad and wished he would have done more vandalism. It was the principle of it, he says. They didn’t just accidentally disrespect my property – they did it on purpose. Why shouldn’t I do the same? He just wishes he would have gotten the offending officers names so he could get their own personal vehicles. The way it is they didn’t personally lose out. Their conduct was wrong and it’s the kind of incident that should not ever be forgotten.
         If something is important enough to you, let the offender know. If they know the cost they may be encouraged to change their ways before it’s too late. Car splashing, by the way, is just one ideal stunt to pull when law enforcement disrespects our property in any way, whether it be sheriffs or correctional officers disrespecting our in-jail personal or issued property or police or the feds doing the same to our home or car.

         Some inmate workers report trying to screw over the prison or jail system in any creative way they can on their job assignments. They believe the quality and quantity of their work they’re made to do is in direct proportion to the pay they get, which is basically next to nothing, and often is.
         The state will pay some inmate workers on a particular job, but not others for doing the very same job. As an example, some of the inmate dining room workers are not paid even though they are doing the exact same tasks as some other inmates are doing, because the state budget allows only a certain number to get paid. The over-capacity conditions do not allow others to get compensated, even though they are made to work or be subject to disciplinary action. If those who write policies like this knew how often these kinds of decisions lead to a cost greater for the state (in vengeance) than if they would just pay all working inmates, they would then be able to see how this is another penny wise and pound foolish situation.
         The prison system’s written policy as to the purpose and intent behind making inmates work goes something like this: “To teach and provide inmates with marketable skills, instill work ethic and good work habits, and provide inmate reintegration back into society.” When one sees the kinds of unfair treatment inmates receive and then reads the official policy as to the purpose of making inmates work, it’s amazing how they can actually sit around and think these things up, then justify them to themselves.

         Some inmates that are particularly mad about getting the amount of time they got are quite vindictive when made to work for the state. They will actually keep track of their hours “donated” to the state and cost the system a comparable amount in some way. As an example, let’s say their time is worth $6.50 per hour on their outside job and they work 3 hours a day while in jail. They will then want to cost the system $19.50 for the days they work. Others keep notes of the abuses they’ve received and check each one off as they’ve settled the score on that particular item.

         Wesley accidentally broke a window and was charged $9.00. He was mad because he only gets $9.15 a month pay for his job. That’s a whole month’s pay. Imagine if you made $2000.00 a month on your job then had to pay out $2,000.00 for a window. That’s how Wesley saw it, and before he was through the state was out $2,000.00. Another penny wise, pound foolish situation; collecting $9.00 to pay out $2,000.00. And he was still mad because he had to be without his canteen items for a month, some of those little things we so badly look forward to. Rather than let him pay part each month and allow him to keep some spending money for canteen items they, with their money-grabbing hands, took every penny from his trust account fund. When courts impose fines they let low-income people make monthly payments. That same method could just as easily have been followed here. It would have surely lowered his anger level and possibly saved the state some money – something they need to start considering when similar situations come in front of them.

         Another inmate had cut the toes out of a pair of socks so he could slip the elastic part over the palms of his hands to assist him in weight lifting. The extra padding cushions the hands. He received an incident report and besides having to pay for the socks he lost 15 days of good-time credit. He said to himself, “if they’re going to be that fussy about one pair of used socks after all they waste (and all the rules they break in regard to us and even cheat us on), I’ll make sure they lose a lot more.” His original plan was to tear up 15 pair of pants from the laundry bin, one for each day he lost. But after awhile, that wasn’t enough satisfaction. From that day forward until the day of his release, every chance he got, he paid the bin a visit or two. Because all this originated with socks he couldn’t neglect them. He threw socks into the trash bins or flushed them down his powerful cell toilet all he could. It turns out that on the day he was getting released he was trying to flush so many, as one last act of defiance for the theft of his money, that he plugged up the plumbing for the whole cell block. Apparently they backed up farther down the line, but that was just an extra side benefit to make him happy on his go home day. Was this penny wise, pound foolish or what? Ah, they probably steal inmates money just the same. They literally persist in the pursuit of ignorance. That’s because no one else is revenging it.

         When some unfair or adverse action is perpetrated against an inmate by a staff member, inmates do have an official appeal procedure they can follow. For an inmate in the California State Department of Corrections this involves filling out a form number CDC 602. A federal prisoner in the Federal Bureau of Prisons use their form number BP-9. In both instances, the inmate explains the problem and asks that it be resolved in a particular manner. While sometimes inmates receive favorable responses, at other times they are not satisfied at all. Some inmates don’t even bother with them. When Leon heard an inmate say he was going to 602 some particular situation, Leon’s response and advise was, “don’t 602 it, revenge it.” He then went on to explain how the person could get more satisfaction than a 602 ever could bring. While some situations may not be serious enough to pursue in an official manner, there is never any reason to let the perpetrators get by with it.
         One thing that is particularly anger provoking is if they want to grant your 602 appeal, even if your grounds are weak, they’ll find some way to justify it. Conversely, if your grounds are so strong as if to demand a favorable response and if they don’t want to grant it, they’ll find some way to either deny it or “conveniently” misplace your 602 altogether. I’ve had both instances happen more than once and when I got the short end of the stick I made sure when I had my chance that theirs was lopped off at ground level.
         One thing is particularly certain, they don’t like to think they are coming out on the bottom, even when they are. And they sure don’t want to let you believe you’re on top, even when you really are. Hobie was put in Ad/Seg 9 days before his release date when officers suspected him of an incident of vandalism. The thing is, due to his known vengefulness when wronged they “knew” he did one last act of defiance to even a score before he got out, but even with their easy-to-prove preponderance of the evidence policy they couldn’t prove it to document on paper. The way Associate Warden C. Reed of the California State Prison at Corcoran spoke to him at his rule-violation hearing it was as if they were being gracious enough to not press the issue because he was going home in a few days and they figured they will just go ahead and allow it. The fact is, they weren’t being gracious – they had no choice in the matter. There was nothing to tie Hobie to that particular vandalism other than the fact that he had done something similar months before. But that doesn’t get a conviction here. Reed let him know that they “know” he did it, but they won’t add any more time to his sentence. He said they’ll let parole authorities deal with it. The thing is, delegating it off to them didn’t make them come out on top as they tried to seem. Hobie was going home and as much as Reed didn’t want that, he couldn’t do anything about it. Right on schedule Hobie went home right from As/Seg and his parole officer never even mentioned the incident. Score one for Hobie and dock Reed two – an extra one for trying to deceive himself into a win.

         Let me finish off this chapter of in custody monkeywrenchers upsetting the system with a method that was completely legal. On the April 25th, 1991 episode of ABC-TV’s PrimeTime Live San Francisco U.S. Attorney William McGivern responded to interviewer Chris Wallace about a particularly legally troublesome inmate, G. Daniel Walker, who regularly aggravates back judicial officials by his legal wrangling tactics of filing complaints and suits among other shadier tactics. He said, “if there were more people like Walker around I think the system would come to a halt.” Hitting them in the pocketbook, as I keep saying, makes them stand up and proceed with care. When Walker had them backed against the wall by one complaint Kern County Attorney Robert Woods said they paid him $10,000 rather than spend $20 or $30,000 to defend their position. It was a “purely economic decision” said Woods. Yes, costing them money (even in legal ways) will make them take notice and be more careful before they make decisions about you. “If they play by less than the rules of the road then we are free to play by less than the rules of the road.” –inmate G. Daniel Walker.

         The methods of vengeance are limited only by the creative imagination of an abused person assuming he or she decides of his or her own free will to act upon it in the first place. Imagine what could happen if some revengefully inclined family or friends on the outside were to carry through on some of these stunts with proper documentation back as to why they happened. Obviously prisoner’s conditions would surely get better, but equally important is we have to get the word out how staff should cease their misbehavior so they are not faced with these embarrassing deeds committed because of their errors.

         Before we go on to Chapter 4 let me say that in January 1990 I learned that a Blue Ribbon Commission on inmate population management had been created under legislation written by Senator Robert Presley, D-Riverside. It said that, “Judges and parole authorities lack sufficient intermediate sanctions to make balanced public safety decisions. The criminal-justice system in California is out of balance and will remain so unless the entire state and local criminal-justice system is addressed from prevention through discharge of jurisdiction.”
         Actually, all in nature must balance. For every person who becomes a victim of abuse, another gives it back in some way. For every abuser who thinks they are somehow better protecting society by these deeds, their comrade somehow gets a slap in the proverbial mouth.
         And while we’re up to quoting others let’s try this on for size. A number of years ago Dr. Karl Menninger, recognized by many as the father of American psychiatry and the co-founder of the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas said, “Much criminal behavior is a pathological reaction to severe punishment suffered earlier in life; further punishment will only worsen the situation.” If he were still alive today he could be overwhelmed with opportunities to say, “I tried to tell you so.” Enough said – on to Chapter 4.

Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]







CHAPTER 4

 

Follow me if I advance, kill me if I retreat, avenge me if I die.
–Mary Matalin

         For people on parole or probation the chance of getting screwed by the system is much higher than for an average person. To be found guilty of a crime, our country’s laws require a person to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a parole or probation officer merely suspects you of a technical violation (something that is not even a crime for an average person to do) or suspects you of an actual crime, he or she can put you in custody with no bail pending a hearing. At this hearing, in front of a judge for a probation violation or a parole violation panel for a parole violation, you could be found guilty with only a preponderance of the evidence which isn’t much more than a mere suspicion. As examples:

         Someone could be mad at you and call your PO saying you did something. That person would be believed because they are not an ex-convict and you are. Your word therefore is not of equal value;
         Worse yet, your PO can merely say a complaint was made just to get you off the streets for awhile;
         You could be questioned by police about a crime in your neighborhood and that’s enough to get you violated because being you have a record you’re automatically a suspect;
         You could be riding in a car and the driver gets pulled over for a traffic infraction. You’ve done nothing, but because your name comes up on the warrant check as a parolee your PO is notified by police and he violates you for being with someone who broke the law;
         You could even be found not guilty by a jury of a crime, but still be found guilty of the same crime by a parole or probation hearing’s less strict preponderance standard.
         Stories of abuse can go on and on.

         One story of an abused person on parole is notable. Russell, a middle-aged man, was actively involved with a certain kind of civil rights’ organization before his arrest. He was proud of the minority opinions he has and this organization does not advocate anyone to break laws. It does however advocate for very liberal, but extremely controversial, changes in some repressive laws favoring human rights so the members can do their particular activity and no longer break any laws. Because of the nature of this group – legally allowed to assemble by the First Amendment of our Constitution – it is not favored by authorities. Russell’s parole officer told him not to attend these group meetings. Afraid his PO may pop in unexpectedly at a meeting to see if Russell was there, Russell stayed away. Instead, he went out on the streets and put up small advertisements about the group’s meetings and their purpose. The PO’s attempt to have the group have one less member ended up bringing in many more. Exactly the opposite of the PO’s intentions and Russell didn’t even violate the rule because he never went to a meeting.

         So fearful are some about getting violated when they do nothing wrong that their behavior may touch on illegality in order to hide certain facts from overzealous parole or probation authorities. This happened with law-abiding Andy several years ago while driving home from work one dark moonless winter night. Some playing kid ran out in front of his car and was struck with enough force to kill him instantly. Even though Andy was not drinking or speeding, he immediately knew he would be subject to blame to some degree and possibly incarceration just because he was an ex-con. Having been through the system and well aware of the ways others have gotten violated, when they never misbehaved in the least, he immediately turned his lights out so as not to let his license plate be seen and sped off as fast as possible. When he got to a phone booth a mile or so away he called 911 to report the incident and get help just in case there was any life left. At the same time he said he could not stay around for personal reasons but explained that all fault was on the careless kid, that there was no way he could have avoided hitting him.
         The next day news reports asked for the public’s help in capturing this hit & run child killer. Andy was going to anonymously explain the situation why he had to run so the parents and others would know it was totally the kid’s fault but after the hostility of the press he wisely kept quiet and, to this day, the grieving parents probably think their kid was innocent of any carelessness and that all the blame for his tragic death should be on the driver.
         It’s too bad likely-to-be abused people have to take such measures, and in turn continue the grieving process for others, in order to protect themselves from circumstances beyond their control. But, as you can see, this is what’s necessary when some people become overly prompted to blame innocent and easily blamable folks. Remember, C Y A – Cover Your Ass. Take care of yourself first, because the judicial system sure won’t! Law abiding Andy was innocent of any wrong doing and in order to make sure he didn’t get screwed over he had to do an actual wrong – leaving the scene of an accident. Even parolees that want to be law abiding sometimes can’t due to the unfair nature of parole authorities. Quite a system isn’t it? Especially when you hear the next story. It’s unfortunate the system forces us to take such protective measures. Isn’t it about time to make sure it’s not automatically open season on people just because they have a record and are on probation or parole? That sure would have helped here.

         Jose, a parolee from the Federal Correctional Institution at Terminal Island, had a salesman’s job involving some traveling and his parole officer fully allowed for his variable agenda when he scheduled him for personal appearances in his office. Due to negligence when a new parole officer took over the old one’s case load, he was not aware of this approved situation. When Jose didn’t show up on a day he expected parolees to make personal appearances in his office he sent Jose a notice. But being out of town he was not there to get it in time. When Jose didn’t show up on the notice’s specified date this new parole officer violated him. After Jose got back into town he went into the office to see what he expected would be his old PO for a short time. Instead, he was taken into custody and transported to federal prison the next day. Despite explaining the situation to the new PO and the PO acknowledging Jose had done nothing wrong, it was too late. The violation paperwork was already filed and Jose would have to go to a hearing to get released. The trouble is, all this took over one month. Besides being in custody unfairly another month he lost his job and possibly worst of all, the negligent PO who should have studied the file with a little more care before just up and violating him never even apologized to Jose. If that would have been me I’d be demanding back pay plus other compensation for the unfair incarceration and also make them find me a new job. Instead, they just released Jose and expected him to find his own job and just accept the extra month incarceration without complaining. That PO is lucky he didn’t come up against me. Actually I’ve had pretty good luck with all the probation and parole officers I’ve had – knock on wood. Of course, I had a track record as one that will make them look bad in return if I get unnecessarily agitated. I sincerely hope many other abused victims will develop the philosophy we preach here so they too will be viewed as the wrong people to screw over.

         Art had an old roll of film developed after he got out of prison and on it was him and some of his old hunting friends with their guns. When his PO saw the picture at his house he violated him for possession of a firearm. Even though Art told him he got rid of the gun after he was arrested, and long before his release and a search of his house produced nothing illegal, he still violated him anyway. You see, the film was dated with a recent date from the film developer and that’s what the PO was going by. All the other people in the picture wrote letters to the parole officials holding a hearing on the matter and Art was released, but all this took 3 months. Three months he could have been working and making money. As far as he was concerned they owed him 3 months time plus thousands of lost dollars and he wasn’t going to settle for anything less. Unfortunately, his robbery method faltered beyond the non-violent limits of our work here and there were serious injuries. Fortunately, Art got away free and clear and is no longer mad about the incident. Just think, if that PO hadn’t of been such a shit head an innocent victim could have been spared a permanent paralysis. Why must victims be left in the wake by such a_ _ holes?

         A California Department of Corrections rule book (Title 15) says inmates “…will [be] provide[d] a broad range of mental health services…” during their incarceration period. Before Jeremy was sentenced, psychiatrists recommended to the court that therapy with strict probation rather than a prison sentence would be better for not only the defendant, but also society in the long run. Although this advise was rejected by Judge Fratianne, he did recommend the CDC should provide Jeremy with some form of counseling. Repeated requests got him nowhere and all counselors did is show him examples where psychologically worse off inmates aren’t even getting the treatment they need. Knowing that they would probably make therapy a condition of his parole after he gets out he wrote up a formal 602 complaint and carried it up the chain of command to get it resolved before he would have to sign his parole papers with its stated conditions. Among other things he firmly said, “I want to get it [therapy] out of the way while I’m in custody and have all the time in the world to attend so I won’t be bothered with it when I get out.…If you failed to do your requirement when I had all the time in the world to participate, it’s unfair to require it after release when I don’t have the time, desire, or inclination to be bothered with it and, in fact, will be busy with other things.…If you didn’t fulfill YOUR requirement before, don’t you dare try to make up for it later by trying to stick me with it after release.” Rather than deny his request they said he couldn’t even file it because a requirement he was appealing hasn’t been made a parole condition as of yet. So here he was stuck because they don’t officially put this requirement on inmates until just before their release even though they know for sure they will do it.
         And sure enough, that’s what happened here. It took Jeremy 3 sessions, one requiring a 20 mile drive to attend at his gas cost, before he convinced them strongly enough that society is safer if they just left him alone to do his parole and get along with his life in a law-abiding manner.
         Other than placing small scratches on nice cars (one for each dollar he spent in gas and lost pay from work) for each session he shouldn’t of had to be bothered with he never violated his parole in the slightest and was released off of parole after a little over a year after he got of prison. Obviously, this was another one of those famous penny wise, pound foolish kinds of situations again. They should have been more concerned about his current vindictive behavior coming back to the surface rather than worrying about some incident 20 some years earlier that normally causes them to require outpatient therapy.
         Sometimes released inmates are not only stuck with some form of mental-health after care once they get out, but they are required to pay for it with their own money. I’ve gotten stuck with that in the past and ended up returning those costs upon society many times above and beyond what was yanked out of my wallet. And I’m still pissed about it because I never made my money back. If they require it, make sure they get stuck with the tab.

         Richard had a similar hassle with his release plans. He was arrested over 20 years ago, at age 21, for having an ongoing consensual sexual relationship with 17-year-old girl. Even though that was the only sexual offense on his record and he had no violent behavior of any kind he was denied early release to a re-entry house/work-furlough program. This program allows inmates to be released up to 4-months before their normal parole release date so they can get help in finding a place to live and work. The way he saw it, this cost him 4-months wages and his normal monthly wage was about $1,000.00.
         Obviously he wasn’t about to be out $4,000.00 without costing them something in return. After reading my earlier sample draft booklet in prison he decided to combine several of its methods. The last I heard he was very successful and is no longer mad at the $4,000.00 loss.
         Once again, they should have been more concerned about the unfairness of the policy (and with that the possibility that someone is bound to someday not stand for it) and be less concerned about an insignificant non-dangerous sexual matter years earlier. And once again we see they misplaced their priorities at great cost to them and put all their worry on the wrong thing. As it turned out, a Correctional Counselor honestly told him the reason they don’t let any ex-sex offenders, even minor ones, go to half-way houses. It’s because if they were to reoffend after being released early the public would get on the prison’s ass as to why they were let out early. Whereas if they reoffend after their mandatory release date the prison staff will be in the clear because they had no choice but to let them out on their mandatory date. Their main concern was just to cover their asses and the counselor bluntly even told Richard that’s the whole reason. What is best for the inmate takes second place to covering their asses first. This is particularly why Richard wanted to do an opposite of their hoped for behavior so they would look bad if he did get caught. As it turned out, he was never caught. But unfortunately, at the same time, he never let the victims know why he did what he did either. So probably his actions will be no help to changing this unfair policy. Hopefully, future revengers will have thoughts toward helping the cause for others.

         The current overcrowded state prison system has a noticeably high percentage of parole violators. Some are brought back for the most ridiculously minor things, and the worse abomination is that some “violators” did nothing. It sometimes appears as if judicial officials want to keep them crowded so they can ask for more money to build more prisons so they can make more jobs for “their” kind of people. More and more we are seeing people imprisoned that should not be. More and more we are seeing that people are becoming emotionally damaged by these kinds of actions. As a result, the public is increasingly seeing repercussions from these kinds of acts, and rightly so. The public needs to be enlightened about the cost they are having to endure. Much of it is not necessary.
         The legislature has stated that, “Parole is critical to successful reintegration of the offender into society and to positive citizenship.” While this may have been their intent, this laudable goal is considerably undermined when they allow abuse to continue. If they really think they are protecting society when they condone these actions, they are not living in the real world.
         Along with what has been covered here and the stunts and tricks listed in the various revenge books listed in Chapter 1 (along with whatever you can find on the internet) the judicial system may be in for some hard times. It may have finally bitten off more than it can chew.
         We’ve listed only a few of the many methods of revenge some people have either thought about doing or have actually done. Creative vindictive people may develop infinitely more on their own. If so, let’s see you put pen to paper and send your contributions along. I’m always looking for more material for future editions and I promise that full credit will be given to contributors unless they wish to be kept anonymous.
         If any readers wish to form a local chapter of VOCAL send your name and number along and when I get enough people in a given area I’ll get you in touch with each other so you can start meeting and discussing your various options regarding eliminating abuse by those in power over you. The more areas we can get our judicial-abuse survivors’ liberation movement into, the less we will be victimized in the future.

         Knowing how hyper-reactive I am towards even mild forms of abuse after being victimized over and over again throughout the years I now keep a copy of the form on the next four page with me at all times just in case I run up against someone prone to misbehavior. It, of course, is no guarantee they will use the extra caution and proper conduct necessary, but at least they can’t come back later and snivel how they had no idea their behavior was so wrong and detrimental, and that they had to proceed with me as if walking on eggs. Readers with a similarly precarious frame of mind are free to copy this form for their own use or even modify it to their own personal needs:

ADVISORY!!!

         BE AWARE, I, (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) have a condition that causes me to have a higher than average degree of sensitivity to always expecting fair and just treatment from those individuals or organizations, particularly the judicial system & personnel, with whom I interact. During times of unfair or unnecessary aggravating experiences – sometimes even minor ones – my symptoms, similar to a severe allergic reaction, have been known to flare up; and, as past history indicates, when they do I do not respond very well. This hyper-sensitivity – not possessed by many, but in fact intensified in me by a series of judicial system misdeeds – is more understandable when you realize how some victims of crime are severely traumatized by the experience while others of a similar crime are barely affected at all. And reacting in an ardent manner is easier to comprehend when viewed from the perspective of a victim who has been repeatedly violated or emotionally battered over and over again by some wrong doing. Victims usually reach a point where they say they won’t take it any more, no matter what! Battered Wife Syndrome is now a recognized condition affecting some continually abused wives who have reached their limits. Thanks to several perpetrators, I am now in a similar position – my abusers being misbehaving judicial personnel, and my condition more correctly being called Abused Defendant Syndrome (ADS) – a condition equally worthy of attention and consideration.
         With ADS, on more than one occasion, my behavior and desires to even the score have materialized into something that tends to – depending upon the degree of inappropriate actions – considerably cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate the perpetrator, or organization he, she, or they represents, who has victimized me in some way. These reactions, while at times quite extreme but always intentionally non-violent, have sometimes been channeled into actions not even illegal; and most of the time there is no defense against them. When I have chosen a method of response I knew could not lead to legal problems, I experience considerable satisfaction & pleasure when I can publicly make somebody look bad & then have a chance to get the last word by saying, “I tried to tell you so.” Three areas I am extremely sensitive about and that must not happen are: Don’t unfairly treat, discriminate against, belittle, taunt, or unnecessarily aggravate me in any way; don’t cheat or cost me money (I can give numerous examples where even a small unfair cost resulted in a great expense to others); and one of the most important of all, don’t ever, ever again mess with – or worse yet, take – MY legitimately obtained personal property. Since I was seriously violated in a very vandalistic search I now put much more emphasis on MY material possessions than people with a spouse and kids put on their family members, and I protect & cherish these possessions and punish violators as fiercely – possibly more, depending upon the level of violation. You know how you’d feel if someone violated your kids. I am that same way with MY material possessions. I don’t have a spouse, kids, or friends and I’m not looking for any. I’m a loner. I’ve got MY personal property – don’t mess with it!!! Or even touch it! Trust me; you don’t want to commit this offense again! This is the one I worry the most would trigger me off the worst. My fuse is far far too short to withstand any violation. Despite what some may think, I do not resent authority figures – only those who abuse their authority, and today abuse it in even minor ways.
         Recently, due to additional judicial system misconduct, my tolerance level and resilience to withstand any of the above violations –– plus being lied to or about (or having my statements misquoted), having the wrong thing nit-picked on or exaggerated in any way (don’t blame me for something I didn’t do [see threats example below], or equally bad, amplify what I did do beyond proper bounds [don’t make a mountain out of a molehill and keep your concerns and priorities on the right thing]), having a hypocritical double standard imposed upon me in any way (don’t persecute me, or punish me more, on something others are allowed to do, especially law enforcement personnel), or various other wrongs; especially threats of any kind which is sure to aggravate the situation (I once got punished for mere words improperly understood as being a threat and am very touchy about receiving them from judicial personnel who think they can throw them around at will and then have the nerve to actually expect me to simply accept them. On too many occasions defendants, after arrest, get threatened to plead to something the DA and judge knows we didn’t do; their behavior doesn’t match Penal Code requirements for guilt. Receiving threats is a very volatile issue to me. Therefore, don’t commit this one! I cannot make it any clearer.) –– has gone even lower and I am less able to forgive, forget, or accept them. This intrinsic quality is something you have to be cognizant of and attempt to work around. In fact, knowing this tendency, you have more of a responsibility, as professionals, to modify your expectations and act in ways that will not promote an escalation of symptoms, bring on certain kinds of unfavorable behavior, or open a pandora’s box. Just as you work within the framework of any differently-abled (handicapped) person’s lesser capabilities, medical weaknesses, or greater sensitivities, that same methodology must be followed here.
         In order to avoid one of the above mentioned reactions, and while working within the structure of my innate nature, I now admonish a prospective perpetrator of my limit(s) and encourage him, her, or them to please choose an alternate course of action, slack off, or otherwise correct the situation when I am nearing my capacity. (And since the most recent travesties that capacity is reached with barely any misconduct whatsoever.) This way, if the offending party doesn’t refrain, he, she, or they must be accountable and accept some of the responsibility and criticism for the possible outcome that may transpire if I suffer a relapse. If they choose to play by less than the rules of the road, then they dare not have a right to complain if I respond in a like fashion.
         Everyone has their limits – mine just happen to be lower than many peoples. Past behavior suggests that; I accept it; and work around it. I am no longer in a state of denial about it. I will no longer hide my true nature in the closet, nor will I lie about it or get bogged down worrying about it. If I’m treated not right, I will respond to some degree – period! This is now a feature of my personality, thanks to past judicial improprieties, and you have to accept it and work around it. And I will not make excuses or apologize for my intentional non-violent reactions when perpetrators knew of their wrong behavior but proceeded anyway.
         If my alternate personality is to remain safely in remission (if I am to avoid falling off the wagon, not backslide, or whatever you wish to call it) as I wish, your conduct must factor my lower threshold into the equation also. In fact, limits are important factors to take into consideration when interacting with anyone like this, whether they have ADS or not, and should not be brushed over lightly. As hindsight demonstrates, and professionals often predict for overly sensitive individuals like this, when they are, unfavorable conduct can and has happened – the exact opposite effect of what you’re trying to accomplish. To persist is literally a penny wise and pound foolish situation.
         Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” applies forcefully in various areas of our lives, even beyond the realm of the typical physicist in the laboratory – and in my case, the reaction has exceeded the action in many instances. Like a dog eventually bites back if he’s kicked too many times, in a similar analogy, guilty culprits should not continue their misbehavior and not expect to get bitten eventually.
         With the advantage of hindsight of past tragedies, most possessing wisdom and desiring to keep reactions within less invasive and acceptable levels, appreciate the opportunity to alter their course when prompted. It’s better to eliminate a problem rather than compound one. An ounce of prevention is surely worth a pound of cure. I know of sensitive people who have successfully made it off of parole without any relapse due, in large part, to parole authorities properly minding their P’s & Q’s. Let’s continue following that same format here. In one case they almost faltered once, but after being shown an earlier version of this Advisory it helped get them back on track and a relapse was adverted. I don’t need any extra aggravation in my life at this time and those who act inappropriately don’t need repercussions and/or bad media coverage. I’m easy to please – my needs are simple. Just don’t violate any of the above and/or get on my shit list, which is very tough to get off – especially for re-offenders. Just like judicial personnel never forget defendants’ past misbehavior, even years ago, I too never forget violations committed against me! I too keep a record. I too am an injustice collector. More caution needs to be shown so that a person not otherwise “dangerous” – or just merely a nuisance – is not actually made so. If you want to be treated fairly, you must first treat others (me) fairly. Only then is everyone benefited.
         Please excuse my sternly worded admonishments (which are not intended to be illegal threats, but rather merely words of advice on expected proper conduct to follow), but critical situations – brought on by your own past misdoings – require strong words. I am only expressing how my anger level is extremely high (thanks in extra special part to the most recent judicial buffoons recommitting offenses against me after knowing full well the results of some of their earlier misbehavior]) and I do not again want to reach a point where a violation of even minor severity is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Several times in the past both I and professional evaluators advised judicial personnel not only a proper course they should take, but also that neglecting it may result in unfavorable behavior. Every time this advise was neglected predictions of poorer responses regrettably came true. You wouldn’t give a recovering alcoholic a drink knowing he or she may suffer a steep fall after even just one drink. I ask the same courtesy. You know the side effects of your misactions. Put your emphasis on smoothing my ruffled feathers rather than ruffling them to a point beyond any hope of smoothing them over again. I’m currently fairly well composed with my attitude with the judicial system at the present time. My writing, speaking, and teaching on judicial abuse matters trickles off any lingering misgivings I still have and profits from these activities helps make up improper financial losses I shouldn’t have suffered. Let’s help keep me in a tranquil state. I haven’t backslid in an illegal way since being released from prison in August 1990, but that continuing status is very dependent upon further ongoing proper behavior of judicial personnel. Heed the lessons of your past mistakes, use the advantage of hindsight – don’t screw up again. Don’t stir up a hornet’s nest. Don’t throw gasoline on a smoldering fire. Don’t light my short fuse. Don’t push me over the edge. Just don’t cross the line – again! Remember, you are on very thin ice. Think relapse prevention; not abuse infliction. Do not for one second even think of sidestepping the Fairness Doctrine. And keep outa’ my piggy bank!

Take that bold step. The ball’s now in your court.
PLAY FAIR
and tread lightly with utmost caution!!!

         So far, I only had a need to show this letter to somebody one time. A parole official attempting to commit an adverse action against me quickly reconsidered her actions and everything turned out O.K. Of course, I have a documented track record for taking my reactions beyond average boundaries so I had some hindsight to fall back upon and extra strength backing up my words. Everyone has to build their own strength. Hold your head high. Just let them know in words and actions you won’t take it any longer under any circumstances – no matter what! And that goes for mild forms of abuse as much as it does for the more serious violations. Abuse proof yourself. Let them know you’re the wrong person to screw over. Let them know it’s a stupid decision if they ever try to violate you again. Let them know you won’t stand for it. Let them know what it will cost if they screw you over again. (I keep a “SHIT LIST” log of injustices on paper just as an accountant would log facts and figures for a business.) Let them know you’re a force to reckon with, a force they don’t like to see mad! A force they know they will never want to rip off again! Don’t let them threaten you into admitting or pleading guilty to something you didn’t do. Don’t let them take the path of least resistance without understanding the friction they will meet farther down the line. They have to be made aware that when they misbehave they are responsible for all reactions that occur in response to their misdeeds. Let them know the buck stops with them! Adopt the motto of one of my VOCAL chapters: We’re furious, we’re fierce, we’re in your face – get used to it!

         One final closing thought. One of the goals of this book is to enlighten and inform authorities that some of their actions and methods of treating offenders are not in the best interest of all concerned. Financially and emotionally they have been a disaster and are getting worse. Surely, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The time for change is at hand. Sometimes the bureaucracy takes actions that give the public the appearance that something is being done, but that appearance is not even skin deep. They have to be made to understand that when they use methods that make offenders worse when they get out they are only setting themselves up. Don’t give us the opportunity a few years from now to say, “we tried to tell you so.” Take those bold steps. Speak out, act out, fight back, organize yourselves, and don’t let anyone rip you off! Make sure you become that squeaky wheel. Don’t let them rob you of your dignity (or money) anymore. Throw road blocks and nails in the way of anyone doing you wrong on the highway of law. Have a full quiver of arrows, a complete arsenal, to shoot these birds down time after time. Be a beacon of honesty in a growing filthy cloud of spiked dishonesty and outright lies. History is full of small numbers of people who helped make enormous changes. We have to stick together. In this game, the power to divide is the power to destroy. There are a lot of us with our views. We need a grass-roots effort. Let’s stay together. Let’s not be divided and destroy ourselves. If we all stick together we may not stop judicial abuse, but we may surely put a damper on it – or in the very least, have a lot of fun trying. We must unite. They can only win if they keep us apart and silent. In this way they can beat us into submission. And if you don’t like group activities just think how it would be without a palace guard dog like VOCAL nipping at their heels keeping them in line. The potential for speaking and then acting out is there in all abused people, it just needs to be nurtured. Each one of us can be a gnat – a little pest, and you know what you get with a lot of gnats! When our nation begins to bind the wounds caused by such foolishness, as we report here, we’ll see a noticeable drop in retribution and a considerable rise in people’s attitudes toward the judicial system. And that is a goal worth working toward. Onward to equality. The ball is now in your court – it’s your turn to score. It’s time to rattle some cages; to go for MIF. PLAY FAIR, or as fair as they do, but proceed with caution.
         And if this work causes some MIF for judicial personnel, well good. That was part of the plan. As I always say, “nothing fixes it better than a well thought out, aggravation inducing, non-violent revenge played to the max.” Stay the course like a tenacious junk-yard dog and lay one hell of a wake. I just love it when a plan comes together. : - ) Let the games begin!

Monkeywrench on folks.
You’ve got the power!!!


Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]








OATH

 

    I____________________am a member of a growing legion of disgruntled people unwilling to ever again, under any circumstances, give up any of my rights for fair, just, and equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I pledge to closely adhere to VOCALs Prime Directive in not allowing any violation of person, property, or money to go by unchecked or unpunished – no matter how minor, or regardless of the time span between offense and resolution. Nor will I allow myself to be unnecessarily aggravated or treated as a second class citizen in any double-standard kind of way.

    As a follower of VOCAL, I promise to abide by its Guidelines and goals and agree to protect, first myself, and then other deserving individuals against all judicial system enemies, foreign and domestic, to the best of my abilities.

    In responding to misdeeds, I will be ever mindful of the violator's original offense level, lest I be tempted to engage in over-behavior which I am actively protecting against. Whenever possible, I will first advise a prospective perpetrator of my zero tolerance status and suggest more benign avenues of behavior, or corrective measures if the misdeed has already been done. Under no circumstances will I purposely trick an abuse-inclined person into action if he or she is naive to possible side effects or consequences. Nor will I intentionally hide the fact that I am the wrong person to mistreat in any way. At all times, no matter what, I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in!

    While it is preferable to return the violation personally upon the guilty culprit's doorstep in a timely manner – and nowhere else – I understand that some indirect, wider-reaching, methods of response designed to cost, inconvenience, embarrass, and/or aggravate a perpetrator, or organization he or she represents, are quite acceptable; even if years pass between the offense and resolution. But I accept VOCALs firm position that any intentional response that physically hurts or injures another animal or person is not. I agree to abstain from such behavior to the best of my abilities and understand that if I falter, VOCAL will disavow any knowledge of my membership.

    I take this OATH freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.







Revenge song

Monkeywrench

[Return to Contents]








Ever See Yourself Wanting to Throw a Monkey
Wrench into the Wheels of the Judicial System
and Really Gum up the Machinery?

Some say if the judicial system treats you unfairly or somehow screws you over you have to accept it as if it is the normal thing to do. Hogwash! Bull cocky!! WE DO NOT!!! These are the ’90s; we don’t play that game any longer! We’re not defendants or inmates from your father’s era. Although we may have to temporarily accept the unfairness when we’re in no position to stop it, that’s no reason to let them slither off and think they put one over on us.

In Revenge on the Judicial System: Don’t Get Mad, Get Even!, author Thomas Larsen, a Revenger for over three decades, enthusiastically encourages and helps you to overcome the idea that you have no option but to accept judicial unfairnesses sight unseen. By understanding various options available, cheated angry people can harmonize their feelings into ways to bring it full circle and back onto those who treated them unfairly.

If you have ever been treated unfairly, lied to or about, victimized, cheated, and/or somehow abused or unnecessarily harassed, threatened, or aggravated, no matter to what extent, by anyone connected in any way with the judicial system – whether while in custody or not – this handy book is for you.

The term abuse, as used throughout this book includes, but is not limited to, any forms of unfair, unpleasant, and/or unnecessary; physical, mental, emotional, psychological, or financial, aggravating actions, to any degree, which leads to unwarranted uneasiness – whether committed accidentally or on purpose. I also consider it abuse for them to act with a double standard and treat a poorer or less prominent person less favorably, in any way, than a more prominent, respected, or politically powerful person who is going through the system for a similar judicial matter. Likewise, it is also double standard abuse to be treated different in any other way due to prejudice or bias (because of race, color, religion, financial condition, sex, age, position of status in the community, or personal differences or interests) than someone else is.

This manual contains a collection of costly dirty tricks and underhanded stunts, some with skewed humor (but sometimes such humor is the best medicine to deal with the aggravation they cause us), that some people could be, and/or have been, inclined to use in order to even the score with anyone, or any judicial organization, who has earned their heartfelt contempt. It was written for the sole purpose of informing those of facts or methods used or thought of being used.

Disclaimer: The incidents depicted are for entertainment and amusement purposes only. They are not intended to be other than educational and/or instructional. They are not portrayed with the intent of helping to promote methods, actions, or devices which assist others in breaking the law. This is not a handbook to be used as a guide meant to be put into practical use. It does not encourage nor discourage breaking laws. Each individual has the responsibility to make up his or her own mind as to whether or not to do so, or even how far they wish to go to even the score, if they in their own mind of their free will even choose to do so at all. Likewise, this material is not advising, counseling, aiding, abetting, instigating, inciting, assisting, promoting, teaching, endorsing, or advocating anyone to break any laws. Under no circumstances will the author assume any responsibility for the actual use of this information or from the ideas portrayed in its stories and shall not be held liable for any direct or indirect damages resulting from their use.

Take your power back! Find their off button. Buck the system – the judicial system! Go against the grain. Rock the status quo! Empower yourself! Don’t be passive and accommodating! Don’t be a causality. Be a nuisance, a thorn in their side, an irritant; not merely a finger tickling at their ribs. Bring it back full circle. Let the judicial system know they picked the wrong person to screw over. Rattle some cages! Read this book!

Speak out, act out, fight back, and don’t let anyone rip you off!
Monkeywrench on folks!
You’ve got the power, the power of revenge!!!

HIP, HIP HURRAY!!!




      Send me e-mail...E-Mailtlarsen2@hotmail.com



Line

800 x 600 site

Site design and content by
Thomas Larsen, 1988-2003 VOCAL


Macintosh     Tex-Edit Plus