Inmates Spit on Antonio Lopezpalacios for a Reason

Inmates spit on Antonio Lopezpalacios for a reason. He is a disrespectful, petty, and immature jerk that enjoys harassing inmates. Eventually the inmates have enough of him and fight back. That is was I was accused of a couple years ago when I was moved from administrative segregation to solitary confinement at the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC). I refused to remove my URL from my cell window and he refused to serve me my breakfast. Then he refused to serve me my lunch for the same reason. I was on restriction at the time so that was all the food I had coming. When he opened my food port for the medical technician after lunch Lopezpalacios said I spit on him. I am not saying that I did that but I am saying that he deserves to be spit on at a minimum if he denies meals to inmates for petty issues like a little writing in toothpaste on a cell window. If I had covered a good portion of it he could have called it a safety risk because he would not have been able to see inside well enough to safely serve the meals, but that was not the case here. It was just a little bit of writing and he could see me just fine. When I was taken to the solitary unit I asked another inmate what he was in there for and he said it was for spitting on a deputy. When I asked who he said "Lopezpalacios." I laughed real hard because not only was he there for spitting on the same deputy, but I had not told him that I was also there for allegedly spitting on Lopezpalacios. The other inmate also told me a story about an inmate punching Lopezpalacios around the same time period. When I went back to MCDC in 2018 Lopezpalacios was nowhere to be found, but I don't know why. He was probably reassigned either due to his attitude or his own request. I also witnessed Lopezpalacios using excessive force on a mentally ill inmate. The inmate would stick his leg out of his food port and Lopezpalacios clearly enjoyed twisting his leg until he pulled it back in. I am not going to say that a deputy is not justified in using force to put an arm or leg back into a cell. I am saying that he seemed to enjoy it too much and that he appeared to keep twisting the man's leg longer than necessary just to get it into the cell. He seemed like he was trying to make it hurt as much as he could without breaking anything as a punishment to deter him from doing it again. Public records list Antonio Lopezpalacios as Lopez-Palacios with the Sheriff's Office under career details. He is listed here as Lopezpalacios because that is how his name appears on MCSO documents. It is not known how his name appears on his uniform because he always makes sure that his radio covers up the Palacios part. Then when inmates have a problem with him he will point to his name and say "I am Lopez."#antoniolopezpalacios #multnomahcountyjail

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3262/inmates-spit-on-antonio-lopezpalacios-for-a-reason

County Attorney Jenny Madkour is Almost as Scary as Her Clients

Multnomah County Attorney Jenny Morf Madkour looks almost as scary as those she represents. Her office is currently representing county corrections deputies that broke the arm of this author and hopefully she will have the sense to settle, but the case is assigned to Bruce Andrew Jones, so whatever happens she will probably blame it on him if he loses and take full credit if he wins. Her office represents despicable people that violate peoples civil rights under color of state law on a regular basis. People like Timothy Barker, Matthew Ingram, Wendy Muth, and other local law enforcement officials that do as they please and relay on her office to protect their ability to keep on hurting people.#jennymadkour #bruceandrewjones #multnomahcountyjail #lawsuit

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3261/county-attorney-jenny-madkour-is-almost-as-scary-as-her-clients

Wrong House? Dallas Officer Amber Guyger Killed Neighbor Accidentally?

Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger is on trial for murdering her neighbor Botham Jean. She says it was the wrong house or in this case wrong apartment. She came home after a long shift and says she thought that she was in her own apartment. Then according to her she thought Jean was an intruder and shot him. So either this was another intentional shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer or another shooting of an unarmed black man that the cop that did it claims was an accident. Either way she will be a cop in jail for a long time. She will have to go to a protective custody yard or she will be in the hole for her own safety in prison. Even if sent to a PC yard she will probably be beat up at least once for being a cop. In her defense though this author knows what it is like to go into the wrong house while tired thinking it is his. When I was in USP Victorville I was so tired from the burpees that my fellow inmates had me doing that I went into the wrong cell thinking I was walking into mine. Every housing unit looked the same, I went into the unit next to mine, and to the cell in the same spot with the same number that mine would have been had I been in the right unit. I walked in on a Sureno taking a dump, left the unit as fast as I could, but because my draw string was broken my pants fell down on the way out. Her defense of being in the wrong place while tired is plausable. #amberguyger #murder #bothamjean #mesquitepolicejail

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3260/wrong-house-dallas-officer-amber-guyger-killed-neighbor-accidentally

Nurse Practitioner Angela Lee Listened but Should Have Helped

This page would have accused nurse practitioner Angela Lee of not listening to a patient had it not been so obvious that she was listening but just did not care what the patient said. I told her that I took a specific medication at a specific time. I told her the dose, she verified the dose with my pharmacy, but there was just one problem. Technically the dose was split between morning and night because when I had been released from the BOP that was how they did it. It was a medication that should only be taken at night so that is when I took it. The only reason I had a split prescription was because when people were taken off extended release in the BOP they were all given regular twice a day. When I got home I did not see the need for a different script because I could just take it all at night. Angela Lee did not seem to care. She only gave me the choice between taking the prescribed evening dose in that amount at night and discontinuing the morning dose or taking both. She would not let me have the full dose at night like I should have gotten. Because I was an inmate she did not seem to care what I had to say. She looked at my weight gain, concluded that I had a metabolic disorder, and refused to "increase" my dose. I was not seeking an increase. I was seeking a dose equal to what I really took. I did not have a metabolic disorder. I know this because since my release I have lost 20 pounds. My disorder was being forced to eat jail/prison food. Even when they put me on a healthy alternative diet that still forced me to supplement with commissary because they feed you such a small quantity. Conclusion, I would not have threatened to expose her had I not known that I was right. If she had just listened and cared about what I had to say I think she would have been more helpful. The threat was in response to knowing that her attitude towards inmates was the basis for her decisions. Had she treated me properly I would not have ended up in solitary confinement.#multnomahcountyjail #angelalee

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3259/nurse-practitioner-angela-lee-listened-but-should-have-helped

Disciplinary Trumps Medical According to Andrew Grundmann

Deputy Andrew Grundmann of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) believes that disciplinary regulations at the jail trump medical needs. I found this out in 2017 when I was taken to unit 4F for disciplinary reasons. At the time my arm was broken and in a sling. The doctor that gave me the sling told me not to remove the sling until the next time I had an appointment. I told Grundmann this but he insisted that I remove the sling as part of a strip search. He said "that is medical this is disciplinary and disciplinary trumps medical." Lucky for me that the arm had healed enough that this incident did not result in any long term damage, but future inmates may not be so fortunate. This is just one example of deputies thinking that their rules are more important than the health of other people. They will just do whatever their rules say and think just doing their jobs justifies it. That kind of thinking is what lowers the collective IQ people in that line of work. When making hiring decisions the sheriff rules out people that are more intelligent because smart people are not capable of just doing what a book says. They will see things that the book does not cover and make the right choice, which disqualifies anyone with intelligence from being a correctional officer. If anyone else did something like this it wold be considered reckless endangerment but the law does not apply to law enforcement equally.#andrewgrundmann #multnomahcountyjail #recklessendangerment

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3258/disciplinary-trumps-medical-according-to-andrew-grundmann

Former Prosecutor Richard Roberts Gets Probation for Theft

Former prosecutor Richard Roberts, the lawyer that took down Frank Lucas, was played by Russell Crowe in the movie American Gangster, and became a defense attorney, was sentenced to probation for stealing funds from his clients. This is the second time he has been found guilty of a crime. In 2018 he pled guilty to tax charges. He also is known as Richie Roberts. This just shows that it takes a crook to catch a crook. #richardroberts #franklucas #americangangster #essexcounty

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3257/former-prosecutor-richard-roberts-gets-probation-for-theft

ODOJ Policy of Sending Subject of Complaints All Info is an Oxymoron

The Oregon Department of Justice Consumer Protection Section claims to protect consumers and encourages anyone to send a complaint while at the same time giving the person or business they complain about all their contact information. That is an oxymoron because the ODOJ presents people with a form that they claim is there to solicit protection while at the same time operating like an open relay for anyone that they complain to get their information. The ODOJ has no idea who the complaint is about but forwards all the information anyway. Now this policy may be based on the Constitutional right to confront one's accusers, but at this stage there is no court case in which there is an entitlement to confrontation. Sure, if a complaint resulted in a court case, the subject of the complaint would have a right to know who was pursuing them, but is it appropriate to give out this information at such an early stage? #odoj #consumerprotection

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3256/odoj-policy-of-sending-subject-of-complaints-all-info-is-an-oxymoron

Connie Goules Accused Me of Running Website I Don't Run

Connie Goules of San Diego, California sent a complaint to ODOJ accusing me of running a website that I do not run. The website was STD.com which has nothing to do with me. The funny thing about this is that by sending in the complaint she was also sending the person she was complaining about a bunch of personal information about herself. As a result of ODOJ policy I received the full complaint including the information of the person complaining from Alicia Suarez. Click on the link above to learn more.#conniegoules #aliciasuarez #odoj #consumerprotection

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3255/connie-goules-accused-me-of-running-website-i-dont-run

Angry Viewer Elaine Kallas Sent Report to Alicia Suarez

Several years ago I received a complaint from Alicia Suarez at ODOJ saying that Elaine Kallas had sent in a complaint about me. The complaint accused me of operating a website but linked to a website that I did not run. Click on the link above for more information.#elainekallas #aliciasuarez #odoj

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3254/angry-viewer-elaine-kallas-sent-report-to-alicia-suarez

Alicia Garza Suarez Would Not Help Confirm Age of Alleged Minor

In 2012 ODOJ Enforcement Officer Alicia Garza Suarez would not help me confirm the age of an alleged minor that someone posted on my website and I still have no clue if that person was under 18 at the time. Instead Suarez seemed to be working with Geoff Darling to hang me up on anything he could come up with. When I was arrested on an unrelated matter the complaint Suarez used against me was among the discovery but was not the basis for any conviction. The funny thing is that I suggested to the alleged parents of the person on the site that they involve law enforcement. If I recall correctly I suggested that they have their daughter go the local police station with her ID and ask an officer to email me saying how old she was. It seemed like an easy way to confirm her age and if she wanted to pursue legal remedies against the person responsible for the posting she would probably need to go there anyway. At the time all the parents offered was a Facebook link to a profile that said she was under 18. Anyone that has seen Catfish the TV Show knows that you can't rely on Facebook for accurate information. When Suarez contacted me I asked her to confirm the age of the person and she never contacted me back. Now to her credit I was arrested two weeks later for an unrelated threatening email, but she had no way of knowing that would happen because the email was not sent until a couple weeks later, so if she intended to get back to me with that confirmation at all, she was fine with letting the person wait. My email correspondence with Suarez was as follows: I would like your help with this one and I'm glad you contacted me about it. I went to the post office a couple days ago and I was thinking of calling Geoff Darling to see if he could help me interperate the form correctly. The form has "victim has documentation" marked as true. Does that mean that the age of the alleged victim has been verified? It the subject is under 18 then the report is in violation of the STDCarriers.com Terms of Use (TOU). There are no active reports for anyone named ******, but if memory serves me there was one case in Edmonton in which similar accusations were made at *****and I posted a comment almost a month ago recommending that if the subject is in fact 16 that she go down to the local police station and ask an officer to send me an email. If these cases are the same then I don't know why they didn't just ask a cop to email me because surely that would have been much faster. ________________________________________ From: Suarez Alicia [mailto:Alicia.Suarezdoj.state.or.us] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:31 PM To: 'webmaster***********com' Subject: Legal Department - FF4115-12 Importance: High We recently wrote you concerning a consumer complaint we had received about your business. We have not yet received your reply. In the event that our letter has been misplaced, we attached another copy of the complaint. We review all complaints to determine if there has been a violation of Oregon law. If you wish for us to consider your position or to attempt to settle this matter informally, we need a written response to the complaint within (15) days of receipt of this email, along with any documents which help explain or support your position. If you do not respond, we can only assume that the complaint is valid as submitted. Your response is essential to a fair evaluation of the complaint. Without it, we have only heard one side. If you are not able to respond, please contact our office to inform us of the delay. Thank you for your cooperation. Alicia Suarez / Enforcement Officer Oregon Department of Justice / Civil Enforcement Division 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 503.934.4400 / Fax: 503.378.8910 alicia.suarezdoj.state.or.us#aliciasuarez #odoj #geoffreydarling #consumerprotection

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3253/alicia-garza-suarez-would-not-help-confirm-age-of-alleged-minor

Multnomah County's Boiler Plate Bull Shit Response to Brutality Suit

I call bull shit on Multnomah County's bull shit boiler plate response to my jail brutality lawsuit. I filed suit against Multnomah County and several deputies for intentionally breaking my arm in 2017 as well as deliberate indifference to my serious medical needs, and defamation for making false statements in official reports. Their response is typical of any government entity that is sued for the conduct of law enforcement. They claim that either their claim involves immunity or is procedurally barred in some way. I am not discouraged because the first line of defense for any lawsuit is to see if you can get it thrown out without addressing the merits of the claims. In this case Senior Assistant County Attorney Bruce Andrew Jones (OSB# 091786) makes several bull shit claims. I will address them as he made them in his response to my lawsuit. First, Jones claims that I failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. That could not be further from the truth. Relief is granted in cases of intentional excessive use of force and failing to properly treat serious medical conditions in many cases. Second, Jones cites Oregon law when he claims that the defamation claims are barred by the statute of limitations because that law required that a claim be brought withing one year. If this case were brought in state court he would be right. However, federal law has a longer statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. 1658 "(a)Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues." The Act of Congress that gives federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims is 28 U.S.C. 1367 which states "(a)Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." Therefore the district court has jurisdiction over state law defamation claims under these Act of Congress and the statute of limitations for pursuing a civil action under an Act of Congress if 4 years. Third, He claims a truth defense to the defamation claims saying, "The alleged defamatory statements by Defendants are true. " The merits of his defense will encounter a lot of the same problems that the United States Attorney's Office ran into when prosecuting me for false claims of injury. Several deputies claimed to be injured but sought no medical care and took no pictures. Therefore there was no evidence to prove the truthfulness of the injury claims. There is also expert testimony proving that claims about how my arm was broken were not true. Fourth, he claims that the defendants are immune from suit under Oregon law. This is a federal lawsuit so even if they are immune from claims in state court that does not trump federal claims of civil rights violations under Section 1983. Also, Oregon law only provides immunity to discretionary functions. No government employee has the discretion to violate someones federal civil rights or a clearly established federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. Intentionally breaking one's arm is not a discretionary function. Fifth and finally, Jones claims that all federal claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The problem with that claim is that qualified immunity only applies to discretionary functions. For instance, if I had been fighting the guards in the firth floor cell and my arm were broken due to them having to control me, as they claim, that would be covered by qualified immunity just like if a cop on the street were to bruise someone they had to tackle while making an arrest. Qualified immunity does not cover intentional acts and civil rights violations because such things are not discretionary functions. The act of sitting on top of me, grabbing my arm, and twisting it until it broke while I was face down on the ground and not resisting at all is not a discretionary function. Even if hypothetically Deputy Timothy Barker was not trying to break the arm, he was at the very least trying to inflict unnecessary pain. Courts have also held that jail medical staff are not protect from claims resulting from deliberate indifference. In support of my arguments I offer the following case law: Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 576 U.S. ___ (2015): "Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a pretrial detainee need only show that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim...Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, and Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, lack relevance in this context because they involved claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, not claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The key difference is that a pretrial detainee is protected from being punished at all, so the punishment need not be cruel or unusual to constitute a punishment without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, so even though I believe that I can show that Deputy Barker's subjectively intended to break my arm I do not have to prove that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable." Hallett v. Morgan, 286 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002): "Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment." Estelle v. Gamble 429 U.S. 97 (1976): "deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and gave rise to a civil rights cause of action under 42 USCS 1983, regardless of whether the indifference was manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002): " Respondents may nevertheless be shielded from liability for their constitutionally impermissible conduct if their actions did not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818. " #multnomahcountyjail #bruceandrewjones #timothybarker #lawsuit

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3252/multnomah-countys-boiler-plate-bull-shit-response-to-brutality-suit

Judge Marco Hernandez Forgot to Sentence Inmate to Supervision Term

In 2017 U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez forgot to sentence a defendant to a term of supervised release following his 6 month jail term imposed for violating conditions of supervised release, but that made no difference in the long run. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 Hernandez had 14 days to correct the error and he did just that. I know this because I was the defendant. I didn't even realize that he forgot to give me supervision until my lawyer told me that I had to go back to court because Hernandez forgot to give me supervision. I fired back "too late, he screwed up, good" but under rule 35 (a) "within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." Since it was obvious at the hearing that Hernandez intended to add a term of supervision but just forgot to say so, it fell within the scope of Rule 35 and he gave me a 24 month term of supervision. This was a painful experience for me because my arm was broken at the time. It was not just any break either. My humerus was snapped into two pieces and I was on in extreme pain constantly even though I was on Norco. Just moving even a little bit hurt and whenever I went to court I was usually gone all day and missed the afternoon med line at the jail. If Judge Hernandez would have done his job right the first time he would have literally saved me a lot of pain. At least he forgot to give me a 30 month term of supervision or at least I think he did. The government had asked for 12 months followed by a 24 month term of supervision. The sentencing guidelines (USSG) recommended a term of 6-12 months for offenders with my history if a Grade C violation was committed. A grade C violation includes technical violations that by themselves would not constitute a crime but just violate a release condition. Since it was my first violation and we obviously made it clear that there were extenuating circumstance, I received just a 6 month sentence plus the 24 months of supervision. But I am not sure if Hernandez forgot that by giving me 6 months he could then give me 30 months of supervision, if I got 24 months because after getting the 6 month revoke AUSA Greg Nyhus never asked for more than 24 months of supervision, or if Hernandez realized he could do it but cut me a break. Based on my experiences with Hernandez I think he probably forgot. I never said anything about this before because technically the court or the government could have moved to add 6 months to my supervision at any time before it expired because technically my term was 6 months below the statutory maximum. I did not want to rat on myself so I kept my mouth shut and now I am no longer on supervision for that case.#marcohernandez #supervisedrelease #criminalprocedure

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3251/judge-marco-hernandez-forgot-to-sentence-inmate-to-supervision-term

How Judge Marco Hernandez Deprived His Court of Jurisdiction Over SRV

Judge Marco Hernandez deprived himself of jurisdiction over a supervised release violation charge in my case and this is how. You can't revoke a term of supervised release that has already been revoked after the sentence for that violation has been served. In my case I was in custody pending sentencing on a violation and the day before Judge Hernandez revoked my release my probation officer (Matthew Pruitt) filed a complaint charging me with a second violation for new criminal conduct. That charge formed the basis for a new criminal charge that eventually led to a guilty plea, so I was guilty of the new criminal conduct violation. Then after the new charge was filed Assistant United States Attorney Greg Nyhus wanted the violation bundled with the new case so that it could be resolved after trial. The problem rose when my sentence for the first violation had been served and my official status changed from that of a prisoner serving a sentence to being a pre-trial detainee. Under the law the second term of supervision had to begin when I was no longer serving a sentence because even though I was in custody I was a pre-trial detainee and a pre-trial detainee is not considered a prisoner even if that detainee is eventually convicted and given credit for time served. As a pre-trial detainee I was shocked to learn that I was not a prisoner because I certainly felt like one. As a result the court lost jurisdiction over the new SRV because according to the Ninth Circuit once a new term of supervision begins one cannot be charged or sentenced for a violation of a previous term of supervision. Had Judge Hernandez not tabled the new SRV matter he could have sentenced me to the full 12 months that would have been recommended under the guidelines or the statutory maximum of two years but in the interest of convenience he denied himself the opportunity. However if he had not tabled it there would have been a good chance of seeing it dismissed by Nyhus to avoid the possibility of prejudicing his case at the new trial. I was the first to raise this type of objection when I forced my lawyer to raise an objection at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak after the violation was filed and before I was indicted. The argument was that you cannot revoke a term of release that has already been revoked. At the time I was still a prisoner serving my original SRV sentence, so Papak was able to hold me. At the time my own lawyer seemed to think that the argument was a loser. Mainly because the new violation was charged before the revocation and it would have given me the ability to violate supervision again without punishment. Judge Hernandez never recognized his error and if he had he probably would not have corrected it himself. The last thing a judge wants to admit to is being wrong and Hernandez specifically cares far more about getting the outcome he wants than the technicalities of the law. Fortunately, Judge Hernandez recused himself and a judge from another state was appointed to oversee the case. That judge noticed while reviewing the record that the court lost jurisdiction over the matter when my original sentence expired. The new judge ordered Nyhus to prove why that violation should not have been dismissed and he could not do it. To learn more see the Ninth Circuit case that led to this decision. That case is United States v. Wing, case number 1130017 (9th Cir. 2012). I looked through my paperwork for a copy of the order and could not find it. If I find it I will post it. The important thing to remember here is that if someone is facing a second violation and they are in custody, did their status ever change from that of a sentenced inmate serving a sentence to that of a detainee awaiting trial or a charge of violating supervision? If they are a detainee then their new term of supervised release has already started and the second violation must be dismissed.#marcohernandez #supervisedrelease #paulpapak #ninthcircuit

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3250/how-judge-marco-hernandez-deprived-his-court-of-jurisdiction-over-srv

Federal Judge Imposed Release Condition so People Wouldn't Get Mad

In 2016 United States District Judge Marco Hernandez banned a man from operating a legal website just because it makes people mad. The website in question was STDCarriers.com where people would sign up and post complaints about people with STDs. One of the people on the list began stalking and harassing the owner until he responded with a threatening email. At a modification hearing Judge Hernandez said, "I told him that it was not illegal at sentencing. I said as much...My question is: Does it make people mad?" Hernandez's logic was that the defendant needed to be prevented from making people mad because when someone got mad and harassed him, he committed the offense of conviction. The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and upheld citing personality traits in relation to public protection. So basically if someone commits a crime they can be banned from working and exercising free speech if that crime was against someone they had already pissed off. This was a lesser restriction to a previous ban on computer use.#marcohernandez #supervisedrelease #censorship #threats

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3249/federal-judge-imposed-release-condition-so-people-wouldnt-get-mad

Ninth Circuit's Censorship Efforts Only Paid Off Temporarily

The Ninth Circuit's ability to censor websites just because the owner sent someone a threatening email years ago is no more. Unfortunately that is because the owner of the sites is off supervision and not because he won his challenges to the constitutionality of the ban and then whether or not a sufficient nexus existed between the lawful businesses and the offense of conviction. The owner argued that just because the person that he had sent the email to would not have provoked him with her own unlawful conduct had he not lawfully refused her requests to remove information. That followed an earlier appeal in which he argued that a ban on computer use for the obvious purpose of keeping him from speaking online was unconstitutional. In the first case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a computer ban is not a ban if it permits access with the approval of a probation officer. That came with it the assumption that the probation officer would approve lawful monitored access to computers. In the case in question that was not the case. The probation officer refused to approve any computer use at all. On top of that the Ninth Circuit overruled its own opinions in 2016 with United States v. LaCoste (9th Cir. 2016 case no. No. 15-30001) in which the court held that they have only supported computer bans in cases involving sex crimes against minors and that a proviso allowing access pursuant to approval by probation was no longer sufficient to make such a condition anything but a total ban. Based on that the district court had to allow the website owner access to computers but then banned him from his website or similar websites specifically. The underlying offense took place when someone wanted a page removed from a website and the owner would not remove it. That person started harassing the owner and members of his family hoping to get to the owner that way. The harassment included threats and a fake 911 call claiming that a hostage situation was taking place (a practice known as "swatting"). When he finally found proof of who was responsible he fought back by letting the person know that he could prove that she was the one responsible and threatened to kill her if she screwed with him further. What got him into trouble was that after she screwed with him again, he told her that he would go to her house "armed to put an end to [her] once and for all." He was held on $1,000,000 bail in state court until the feds picked up the case, held him without bail, and the state charges were dropped. When pleading guilty the government made it look as if the deranged stalker that targeted the website owner were in fact the real victim. The government claimed that even though the owner of site did not break the law until sending the email that he still inflicted emotional distress and was therefore to blame for the situation. The judge obviously cared more about doing what was popular than the constitution. A good judge would have scolded the prosecutor for not charging her and categorized her claims of distress due to the web posting as irrelevant. Instead the judge did all he could to prevent anyone else from provoking the owner by keeping him from being able to speak online. When imposing the website ban he implied that it would be necessary to protect any member of the public that might harass the owner in person and not just online. As a result the government and the court basically green lighted the owner by saying that they will not pursue charges against people that threaten or harass him, but they will throw the book at him if he fights back. This went beyond keeping him from sending threatening emails. It said that if someone were to harass him in person they would need protection. When that is the case the appropriate thing to say is "do not harass that guy in person" because he has the same right to defend himself as anyone else. The Ninth Circuit supported that logic by holding that not only was the email enough of a nexus but that "The public is entitled to be protected against crimes flowing from the same character trait demonstrated by the crime." So, if someone is convicted of a crime and any employment they seek is deemed related in any way to the same character trait demonstrated by the crime an employment restriction is justified. That means that in the Ninth Circuit all a prosecutor has to do to get an employment restriction against a convict is play a quick game of Six Degrees of a Character Trait.#ninthcircuit #richardpaez #carlosbea #michaelanello #censorship

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3248/ninth-circuits-censorship-efforts-only-paid-off-temporarily

Dog Attack is Just One Example of Marti Kyles Abusing Inmates

Ordering a dog to attack an inmate is just one example of Deputy Marti Kyles abusing inmates with the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) in St. Helens, Oregon. Kyles, also known as Marti Anne Kyles, grew up in the St. Helens area and has been a CCSO corrections deputy for many years. During that time she has earned a reputation for excessively punishing inmates with responses to their behavior far in excess of that behavior. In some cases that is in the form of write ups or sentences for those write ups that are excessive, but sometimes her response leads to unnecessary physical attacks on inmates that are completely unnecessary. Her motives usually have more to do with her personal feelings than what the inmate did especially if the inmate did something to humiliate her or question her authority in front of other inmates in any way. At those points she finds excuses to justify using force, putting someone in the hole, or keeping someone in the hole longer than they deserve to be there. The most notable case took place on August 1, 2017 involving a mentally ill inmate that had known Kyles since high school. That inmate called her some name that day that had been used to bully her when they were growing up. She sent him to the hole and then called for backup because he would not stick his hands through the food port for cuffing. The K-9 unit responded and when he still did not stick his hands through the food port the cell door was opened and the dog attacked the inmate. Kyles can be seen in the surveillance footage going in after the attack and shoving the inmate's head into the concrete floor while he was face down on the floor and not resisting. That incident cost Columbia County over $250,000 after the inmate sued for unnecessary force. The surveillance footage clearly shows an inmate cowering toward the back of his cell when the door was opened, so it was not necessary to use a dog on him. He suffered injuries from the bite that were significant. All this because Kyles felt insulted and wanted an excuse to hurt the inmate. She would justify this as necessary to force compliance with the rules, but fails to realize or at least respect the fact that force used to force compliance with jail rules is excessive when the rule violation does not create a safety risk. In anther case involving this author. An inmate refused to place his hand through the food port in 2018 so that a cell search could be conducted. The inmate knew that they only wanted to confiscate commissary items that the rules did not permit him to have on lockdown status. The inmate knew that even though refusal to let them take the items would result in an incident report, that taking commissary was not enough to justify force, so by making it clear that force would be the only way to take the items, the inmate would have been able to keep them. Kyles does not tolerate this type of insubordination. She had Tim Trask, who is a bid dude, go into the cell, body slam the inmate, and then as a group they carried him to booking so that they could search the cell. Nobody was hurt, but Kyles crossed the line by risking injury to the inmate and her coworkers just to carry out a task that was not necessary to keep people safe. In another incident this author was sentenced to seven days of solitary confinement just for trying to take coffee to court. At just about any other facility the guard that discovered the coffee, Mason Dawson, would have just taken the coffee and that would have been it. No write-up, no solitary confinement, etc. because it was just coffee in a sock. Kyles decided to make this issue even worse by adding a sentence of seven days in solitary. This was quite petty of her but she knew that the person with the coffee owned a website used to question the authority of the CCSO including several deputies at that jail. In another incident, Kyles wrote up this author for "other" conduct causing her a serious safety risk. That conduct was propping a bucket full of water up against a door for the purpose of soaking a child molester when he was due to open that door from the other side. She thought that a deputy might slip, fall, and be seriously injured. Even though the pavement that would be soaked was made with a surface designed to help shoes grip it to prevent falls. Any deputy that may have been there when the surface was soaked would have known the pavement was wet and probably would not slip on it. Kyles seemed to like that child molester (Gerald Ryan Davis) and just wanted to keep him from being harassed by making up a rule violation. Marti Kyles is a danger to the safety of herself and others. She should not be allowed to continue to work in her current capacity.#martikyles #columbiacountyjail #assault #dogs

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3247/dog-attack-is-just-one-example-of-marti-kyles-abusing-inmates

Columbia County Sheriff's Office Group Photo is Missing Bad People

The official Columbia County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) group photo is incomplete. There are many deputies not included in it. Bad deputies like Marti Kyles who set a dog on a mentally ill inmate, Randy Bonds who punched this author while face down on the floor, Tim Trash who stormed my cell at Kyles' orders, and many more. Plus the photo is of such poor quality it is hard to make out their faces.#columbiacountyjail #martikyles #jeffdickerson #groupphotos

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3246/columbia-county-sheriffs-office-group-photo-is-missing-bad-people

Thanks for Singling Me Out Correctional Officer Gary Davis Jr.

In a prison where the walls are covered with graffiti the founder of CopBlaster.com was singled out for his when correctional officer Gary Davis Jr. wrote him an incident report in 2018. He based his accusations on the fact that the inmate receiving the incident report was known to all the staff as the owner of CopBlaster.com and the graffiti said in big black letters "COPBLASTER.COM" among other things. If officer Davis gives the other inmate wall artists a pass then the Cop Blaster should have gotten one too.#garydavis #fcisheridan #inmateart

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3245/thanks-for-singling-me-out-correctional-officer-gary-davis-jr

Probation Says Online Criticism of Contractor Does Not Cross the Line

My probation officer told me today that my online criticism of a probation contractor did not cross the line. By that he meant it did not break the law or violate any of my conditions of supervised release. I could tell that he was not happy about it and that was understandable. The company did not like it either even though as you can see by clicking on the link to the review that I have since turned it into a positive recommendation for RemoteCom because even if they did cause the problem, which they deny, the problem disappeared within 24 hours of me writing the review and contacting them. I simply asked that they not block me from a specific website that I own and offered to change my scathing complaint into a positive review. I am not saying that they did anything other than tell probation about this but if they did I am thankful and still want to do business with them. This kind of consumer advocacy works great with companies even if the company is one contracted by the government to assist with law enforcement functions. By venting your problem online you are creating a problem for them beyond just being another number in the queue at customer service. Companies know that people use online reviews to decide what to buy and that resolving such disputes is good for business. If you have an issue with a government contractor I recommend venting it online and giving them the chance to turn that into a positive based on how they respond. RemoteCom responded well so their review now reflects that. I say even though they did not block the website from my computer because they and probation deny that they had anything to do with it and I cannot conclusively prove that it was them. The situation was that I had been banned from running a website in an old case and that when that case expired and the site was back up I could not view it even though other people on the same network and other networks could. This led me to believe that it was a problem with my machine and not the website. I did not make any changes to the server that would explain the problem going away. On the other hand the tone of RemoteCom's last emails sounds like how someone would react that was falsely accused of something. Their last message stated: "Thank you for your email. Since we were not blocking you in the first place, nothing has been changed in any way on our end. If you are now able to access your site, you may consider any changes you have made on the device in the last few days, to prevent having the same issues in the future. Thanks, RemoteCOM Support" The important thing to remember here is that as a person on supervision I still have rights and so do others similarly situated. My heart was racing as I went to my meeting with probation because I have been falsely accused of violations in the past. Today I explained what I did, why did it, and why I would do it again. My PO although visibly dissatisfied ultimately did his job and admitted that none of it crossed the line.#usprobation #remotecom #supervisedrelease

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3244/probation-says-online-criticism-of-contractor-does-not-cross-the-line

Working with Remote-Com has Been Positive, But was I Secretly Blocked?

This article was originally a scathing complaint blasting Remote-Com.com for blocking my computer from accessing an old website of mine, but that problem seems to have gone away. Funny thing is that both Remote-Com and my probation officer are adamant that Remote-Com was not behind the blocks. Personally I am not so sure that they were not behind the blocks because if they were it would have been legally questionable, so it would make sense for them to deny blocking me from the old website. Whatever the cause was I am finally able to view it in Google Chrome at its normal address, I can connect to my ftp server, and my mail server. I could not do that yesterday and the experience was basically identical to the one I experienced with IPPC when they blocked me from several web pages. I was understandably quite angry and I wanted to get to the bottom of the problem quickly, so I wrote a scathing complaint about them detailing what I could not do and what I could do. That can be very effective when dealing with companies online because they don't want a bruise on their online reputation. I have learned from experience that companies respond to complaints faster and try to resolve them quicker when a link to an online complaint is sent. Everything appeared consistent with something blocking a specific domain name. I told them that if the problem were fixed I would not get into ways I could still access the site, but they were consistent with block on connecting to a specific domain. Now that everything works fine I really do not care what the problem was as long as it does not repeat itself. Overall I have been quite happy with Remote-Com because I have yet to find any evidence proving that any problems I have had was due to them. I do have times where my computer gets slow and I am wondering if it is the monitoring software that is doing it, but I usually see a bunch of Windows processes being blamed, so thanks a lot Microsoft. They are much better than IPPC Technologies. Finally, I would like to thank them for personally responding to my complaint within 24 hours. That was professional and whether they stopped doing what I suspected them of or not, My computer works now. I just hope that Remote-Com is not going to throw a fit over me criticizing them. I still want to do business with them and I hope that they feel the same.#remotecom #monitoringsoftware #censorship

source https://copblaster.com/blast/3243/working-with-remote-com-has-been-positive-but-was-i-secretly-blocked

Need a Counselor in Jail? Watch Out for Mark Hale-Brown

If you or anyone you care about ever need a counselor in jail watch out for Mark Hale-Brown at the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC). He will stay in close contact with the police, probation, and the court with dirt on you or someone you care about. I found that out when I got discovery including emails between him and my probation officer. He seems like a personable trustworthy person whose job it is to assist inmates with their daily affairs. What people don't necessarily realize is that he does more than that. He rats on people he is supposed to counsel. I don't have copies of the emails scanned at the moment but I might get around to uploading them later.#markhalebrown #multnomahcountyjail

source https://copblaster.com/blast/2243/need-a-counselor-in-jail-watch-out-for-mark-hale-brown

Sharon Brown's Claim That Nancy Ronan Discontinued Mobic Due to Advil

I received a notice from RN Sharon Brown at the Columbia County Jail saying that Nancy Ronan discontinued my Mobic because I had made up for inadequate pain management by buying ibuprofen from the commissary. The problem with this conclusion is that I was only being given half of the maximum dosage of Mobic, I was never before told that mixing the two could be a problem, and even after I stopped buying ibuprofen they still cited my previous purchase as why I could not get Mobic again. Mobic is a NSAID just like ibuprofen but much stronger and needed by people experiencing worse pain than that which ibuprofen can manage. Sharon and Nancy should have just given me Mobic with a directive not to buy ibuprofen and possibly a directive to the commissary not to sell me ibuprofen. The message from Nurse Sharon Brown said, "Mr. Sullivan your Mobic was discontinued by the provider because you are buying ibuprofen on commissary which mixed with the pain protocol exceeds the safe level of NSAIDs. We are unable to continue the Mobic with you taking ibuprofen."#columbiacountyjail #nancyronan #correctcaresolutions

source https://copblaster.com/blast/2242/sharon-browns-claim-that-nancy-ronan-discontinued-mobic-due-to-advil

FCI Sheridan Special Housing Unit (SHU) Rules Make It Hard to Leave

If you have a friend or family member in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at FCI Sheridan and you are wondering why they never seem to get out of SHU these rules are probably why. If enforced they can drive any inmate insane. This author knows. I was in the SHU at FCI Sheridan off and on in 2018 for many months and when I was there I just got write-up after write-up simply for trying to do my own thing on my own time. On top of that don't even think about standing up for your rights that will get you into all kinds of problems. If you are growing frustrated with someone you know always being in SHU read these rules and get frustrated with the people running the place.#fcisheridan #shu #bopdocuments

source https://copblaster.com/blast/2241/fci-sheridan-special-housing-unit-shu-rules-make-it-hard-to-leave