Category: Criminal Justice

In case you missed the dispatch from Davey Jones, no not the one with the nautical locker or the guy that used to be in the 1960’s band, The Monkeys, but the one from Sacramento that is now the State Insurance Commissioner. Yeah, that Davey Jones just nuked Berkshire Hathaway using the full faith and credit of California (and believe me the credit of California is vast). Anyway, take a look at this.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After a year of legal wrangling, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced today that the California Department of Insurance has reached a settlement agreement with Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries to stop the bait and switch marketing tactics used to sell a workers’ compensation insurance product, which led to numerous complaints from employers caught up in the costly and complicated policies.

In May 2016, in response to a complaint by a small business owner and after a hearing by an administrative law judge, the commissioner determined California Insurance Company and Applied Underwriters, both subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, were selling a workers’ compensation product with illegal side agreements that modified the obligations of the parties under the policy.

Link: Settlement Press Release

I will let X tell you more if he is so inclined but once again we are proven Really Right.

 

Department of Corrections opts out of physician assisted suicide law in California.

Below are excerpts of the proposed response to this new California law.
www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/NCDR/2016NCR/16-10/NCR_16-10_Notice_of_Proposed_Regulations_Posting.pdf

3359.8 End of Life Option Act Exemption

New section 3359.8 is adopted to read:
All terminally ill inmates remaining in the custody of CDCR will receive health care appropriate and necessary to their situation, including counseling, hospice and palliative care. Inmates in the custody of CDCR shall not be provided aid-in-dying drugs under the End of Life Option Act (California Health and Safety Code, Division 1, Part 1.85, Sections 443-443.22). Employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, shall not participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act on premises managed by or under the direct control or management of the Department or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the Department.
Page 5

Confirming that individuals requesting end of life medication have made an informed and voluntary decision is the most significant factor in the End of Life Option Act. Its provisions describe the specific content and timing of the required oral and written requests for the medications. Confirmation of the request to the attending physician is required from a consulting physician and from a mental health specialist if there are indications of a mental disorder. Even within those safeguards, it is unclear how an inmate could make a voluntary decision in light of the influence and effect of confinement. The degree that inmate decisions are influenced or coerced, directly or indirectly, by the conditions of confinement or by the remaining length of sentence cannot readily be measured or alleviated.

Given the custodial status of terminally ill inmates, the End of Life Option Act creates a potential conflict of interest for CDCR staff and contractors responsible for inmates’ safety and welfare. In California, CDCR determines where inmates will be assigned and determines their housing restrictions in the prison; it decides who can visit them and for how long; and their access to food, clothing and personal property. Health care is provided to inmates by CDCR employees or through contracts with CDCR. Prison health care staff determine what care is offered to inmates, when and which employees or contractors will provide treatment. Finally, the State of California pays for inmate care and treatment of inmates, including end of life care.

Once the aid-in-dying drugs are prescribed and delivered to the patient under the End of Life Option Act, the individual is free to choose when and where to ingest the medication. Alternatively, the person may decide not to end his or her life. The abuse of both illicit and prescribed medications in CDCR is a major safety and security concern. If a terminally ill inmate were allowed to possess aid-in-dying drugs, significant operational and administrative controls would be required to manage access to the self-administered medications. Prison staff would have to play an unacceptable role in managing and supervising the inmate’s end-of-life actions.
Page 6-7

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt; it’s a way of life when liberals run the government.

Yesterday, another missive was circulated entitled “Emergency Situation Preparedness.” Citing the San Bernardino shooting and closure of Los Angeles schools (based on a hoax), this state agency sent out the “…following information copied from a large university’s safety update includes valuable information from their Campus Security on preparedness and what to do if you are involved in an active shooter situation.”

The email goes on to try to describe the difference between an active shoot and a hostage situation. “Hostage or barricaded subject situations often take place over a longer period of time, and usually there is no ongoing injury or loss of life. “

Somehow the Beslan terror attack is omitted from these discussions. (see Wikipedia article on Beslan school siege) The Beslan terror attack involved 1,100 hostages taken at an elementary school. Over the three day siege, 385 were killed. Most Americans have never heard of this event. A documentary on this event—narrated by actress Julia Roberts—is well worth viewing.

The memo then goes on to describe how to respond when a shooter is in your area. The reader is offered three options after they dial 911:
1. Run
2. Hide
3. Fight

Option 3, Fight is the most entertaining section to read. Remember government buildings including schools and offices are “gun free zones”. This means only bad guys can be armed in these areas. They are the aggressors and we are the targets (victims).

3. Fight.
Take action against the active shooter as a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter by:

• Acting as aggressively as possible against him/her.
• Throwing items and improvising weapons.
• Yelling.
• Committing to your actions.

Todd Beamer comes to mind when I read this section but then I remember it is addressed to government workers and my heart sinks. Just for fun, let’s go thru these.

Acting aggressively—OK that guy has a gun, he has just shot up your office and now you walk up to him and do what, growl? Oh, sorry be aggressive and yell. When you yell what do you say, “Get off my lawn”? “Bullying is wrong and you should stop it?”

Throw items—perhaps staplers and tape dispensers. Yeah, tape dispensers, they are heavier and more aerodynamic than coffee cups and flat screen monitors. Like zombie movies, aim for the head.

Committing to your actions—means what exactly? Contrary to popular culture, John Wayne never took unnecessary risks in his movies; he just did what needed to be done. I guess if you plan to fight, be willing to “take one for the team”.

Apparently this is why the last memo we got said keep your ID card with you at all times, so they can identify your body after you miss with the stapler.

Yesterday the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent employees a memo concerning security. This comes on the heels of the shooting at a county facility in San Bernardino.

Before I present the memo, please keep the following facts in mind:
• The San Bernardino shooter was employed at the location where the shooting occurred for five years.
• He knew the people he was shooting.
• His act was premeditated.
• He had access to the building where the shooting occurred.
• He knew that his building was a “gun free zone”.
• He brought friends to help him commit his murderous rampage.

It has come to our attention that many staff are lax in complying with the requirement to carry their identification card on their person while on work premises as instructed in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. (see inserted language below)

For safety considerations, we ask that you make a habit of carrying your ID and key card/fob while at work. The reception desk will be tightening access into suite C1.
In light of recent events and the fact that our building lacks an onsite security detail, the Administrative Unit wants to be as vigilant as possible to maintain a safe work environment.

State of California
California Code of Regulations
Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections

Section 3414. Identification Card.
Every employee will be issued a departmental identification card. Employees must, while on duty, carry such card upon their person and produce the card upon request. An employee must promptly report the loss of his or her identification card.

Emphasis in original memo

There you have it, carry your state issued ID card and don’t lose your card key. The remainder of the memo was concerning the policy of issuing a temporary card key if you left yours at home or it was stolen.

My immediate thoughts on the memo were these:
• I guess the ID card requirement is to make identifying our bodies swifter in the event of a similar tragedy.
• I actually forgot my key card on Tuesday and never had to wait more than two minutes to get into any door in the building.

Again, the San Bernardino shooter had a county issued ID card and a key card to get into his building and how many people did he kill?

In contrast, two buildings further down the street from CDCR is the state headquarters of the National Guard. There they have two Humvees and three guys with M-16s controlling access to their parking lot; plus several concrete barriers erected around their building. In my experience, such security is traditionally conducted with unloaded weapons but if you were a bad guy which would you choose as a target. A state building that has a bunch of paper pushers in it or one where guys are brandishing weapons and most people in the building have some training on how to kill?

Given those choices and a hearty amount of criminal intent, I’d pick the known soft target.

Is it me, or have you noticed that often the difference between the crooks and the cops is the badge? Not to say that there aren’t some good folks in law enforcement but there are some bad apples too. One such apple that I have crosses political swords with before is current Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto.

Prior to his gig as Sheriff, Ed used to work for the California Highway Patrol. He was an instructor at the CHP Academy in West Sacramento. During his time as an instructor, he was able to screen female recruits and upgrade to a new wife.

Ed is not the only CHP instructor that I am acquainted with to trade a ring for a fling. Our society has a term for people like Ed that use their position as a supervisor to get sexual favors from those under them.

Anyway, after the Academy, Ed decided to run for sheriff in Yolo County. As a result, his first political fundraiser was in Los Angeles. No joke, I think I still have the campaign finance reports. I remember because one of his first contributions was from an abortion clinic in East Los Angeles. Why a sheriff candidate would accept money from anybody living over 400 miles away is peculiar but what nexus is there between abortions in East Los Angeles and a rural law enforcement guy? (I will let the reader speculate any possible connection.)

Ed and I had a talk at the Yolo County Fair the summer he first campaigned. He was staunchly defending Bill Clinton as news of Monica’s famous blue dress was helping to inject “a Lewinsky” into the public lexicon. Being of a similar background to the President, I understood his desire to defend Clinton.

With the Democrat machine in Davis backing him, Ed won the election and has been sheriff ever since.

Ed has a documented track record of being morally challenged so it was no surprise that he has been hit with three harassment lawsuit in two years. What is surprising is that it is his employees, the sheriff deputies that are having issues with him.

Lawsuit #1 Sexual Harassment of Deputy

Robin Gonzalez claims in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that the blatant conduct has continued for almost her entire 11 years under Prieto’s command.

The uninvited and unwanted attention has included hugging and kissing her, cradling her buttocks in his hands, pinching other parts of her body, lewd stares, repeated observations regarding her appearance and weight, and remarks laced with sexual innuendo, according to Gonzalez.

At one point, Gonzalez states in the civil rights suit, Prieto told her she could continue in her position as an investigator if she performed oral sex on him.
female deputy’s suit accuses yolo

Lawsuit #2 Sexual Harassment of Deputy

Victoria Zetwick, a corrections sergeant and veteran of 24 years in the Sheriff’s Department, alleges that Prieto embraced and kissed her more than 100 times in the 14 years since he became sheriff.

The suit, filed Oct. 3 in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, names Prieto and Yolo County as co-defendants and seeks undisclosed damages, claiming “mental anguish and emotional distress.”

“Each time was awkward, unsolicited and unwelcome,” the suit states, adding later that Prieto acted with “impunity and increasing boldness” and was unfit to serve as sheriff.
Deputy Files Suit

Lawsuit #3 Racial Harassment of Deputy

A Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy has accused Sheriff Ed Prieto of using racially insensitive language during a departmental staff meeting last fall.

Deputy Darrel Johnson told KCRA that during a meeting with a number of deputies and other high-ranking officials in the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department in September of 2011, the Sheriff singled him out using possibly racially inflammatory names such as “gravy” and “dark one.”

Deputy Johnson, who turns 43 next week, is a 14-year veteran peace office who has served the past seven years as a sheriff’s deputy with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department where he is currently employed.
deputy-files-suit-against-sheriff-prieto-alleging-racially-insensitve-names-and-hostile-work-environment

Being a Democrat officeholder in California clearly insulates officials from the rules that the rest of us are expected to follow. Prieto is unfit to be Yolo Sheriff. His justification is that he has behaved this way his whole law enforcement career so why should he change now? I hope he resigns and get out of law enforcement, but I suspect that he will cling to power until it is taken from him. At best, perhaps he will decide not to run for re-election.

On the other hand, with all this publicity, perhaps Ed could get employment as a TSA screener. He certainly has a feel for the job.

 

Update

Sacramento Bee has hidden the articles behind their firewall but other stories can still be found related to this issue in2018

Commentary: Is There a Problem at the Sheriff’s Department?