|
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 from 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 authority’s 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 authority’s 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 to 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 monkeywrench as he puts it. That is a pet hobby of his. Some people like cats or dogs or collecting stamps. He likes monkeywrenching. (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 Men’s 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.
[Return to Contents]
|
tlarsen2@hotmail.com
