Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Complaint to CLERB and San Diego Sheriff's Department Internal Affairs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    In addition to the Federal Lawsuit filed regarding CCWs in San Diego County, I filed today, a complaint with the San Diego County Law Enforcement Review Board and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.

    Here is a link to the complaint that has been filed:

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.Webpages/1....STATEMENT.pdf

    The complaint involves the inability of the Sheriff's Department to read, understand and follow various provisions of the California Penal Code, together with my allegations that one or more criminal sections of the Penal Code have been violated.

    Everyone interested in the topic should read the complaint and the various sections of the California Penal Code and judge for themselves.

    It's a sad day when members of the California law enforcement community cannot read and understand the law.

    The issues addressed in this complaint will be resolved one way or the other.


    THE BEST PART OF POSTING THE COMPLAINT ON THIS WEBSITE IS THE FACT THATMEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY READ THIS BOARD AND WILL JUDGE THEIR SUPERIORSAND REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.


    LET'S SEE IF THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CHANGE PRIOR TO ADDITIONALLITIGATION BEING FILED.




  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    CA law gives sheriffs wide ranging power to determine who he grants CC permits to. Even if the contention that the "residence" the poster claims to have in CA satsifies the legal requirement, there is no requirement the sheriff issue a permit.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Oh, they understand it, they just choose to commit treason and violate their oaths to protect and defend the supreme law of the land, and disarm law-abiding citizens on behalf of criminal safety above all else.

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Here is a link to the complaint that has been filed:

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.Webpages/1....STATEMENT.pdf
    Ed, I'm getting a blank page with that link and the one at your CT web site.



    art work by Oleg Volk:

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    CA law gives sheriffs wide ranging power to determine who he grants CC permits to. Even if the contention that the "residence" the poster claims to have in CA satsifies the legal requirement, there is no requirement the sheriff issue a permit.
    Since you posted this here, I presume you think Mr. Peruta overlooked this fact. Rest assured he is aware of this, and it doesn't affect the situation.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    CA law gives sheriffs wide ranging power to determine who he grants CC permits to. Even if the contention that the "residence" the poster claims to have in CA satsifies the legal requirement, there is no requirement the sheriff issue a permit.
    It does not, however, give sheriffs the green light to commit fraud and theft of hundreds of dollars per applicant (who are almost always denied without large campaigncoughbriberycoughcontributions).

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Note to CATO, I fixed the link and I am back in San Diego until next spring.

    The California Penal Code is EXTREMELY direct in mandating that:

    The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license.

    After my April 30, 2009 hearing with, (at the time), Assistant Sheriff James Cooke, I had the opportunity to meet with him alonein his office and brought the issue of CCW fees and the illegal manner in which they were being demanded and collected to his attention. It was one of those "WHAT PART OF THIS LAW DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND" type discussions.


    This is a section of the letter sent to notify me that I had lost my appeal.

    "Because your application was not approved, you are entitled to a refund of $50.51 of the application fees you posted at the beginning of the process. If you would please sign the enclosed claim and voucher form, then return it to our License Division at 9621 Ridgehaven Court, San Diego, CA 92123, we will process your refund and mail it to the Driscol Drive address."


    You will see in the PDF document link at the bottom of this post, that in a letter over his signature, he attempts to mitigate the damage by offering a $50.51 refund IF if would fill out and submit a form.

    IDID NOT AND WILL NOT fill out anyclaim and voucher form to obtain money that was stolen. Given the fact thatthey still have the money that was taken from me under false pretenses. It's now evidence of the criminal enterprise that is operating in the San Diego Sheriff's Department.

    I am also shocked at the incorrect spelling in the letter and have to believe that it WAS NOT typed by a qualified secretary/civil servant.

    The fact that it was brought to their attention on or before April 30, 2009 and is continuing to this day is CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence that sworn members of the San Diego Sheriff's Department do not live up to the standards expected of public servants.





    Judgefor yourself after reading and listening to the documents and audio clips posted at: http://ctgunrights.com/00.Webpages/C...to.Dismiss.htm.




    In their denial, they seem to question my MORAL CHARACTER, and I will do whatever it takes for however long it take regardless of the costs.




    I BELIEVE, (AS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN), THAT I HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION AND THE CHARACTER TO FIGHT ILLEGAL CONDUCT BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

  8. #8
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Note to CATO, I fixed the link and I am back in San Diego until next spring.
    Cool, lets go for a ride-a-long some time!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    California law requires that one must claim "good cause" for a license, yet the same law does not define "good cause." You, the applicant, put down what you consider to be "good cause" on the application, and the sheriff, approver of such application, determines, arbitrarily in most cases, what "good cause" is. Only the sheriff's opinion counts.

    Is there not some civil court ruling on the books that states if a law is ambiguous, i.e., not clearly spelled out and defined, that the court is obligated to rule for the plaintiff?

    Shouldn't the sheriff have to show why your claim of "good cause" isn't good enought?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    There is a California State case that was researched by Attorney Jason Davis out of Los Angeles where a court approved a settlement with spells out a specific set of guidelines for determining "GOOD CAUSE".

    In my denial, the area that really has me baffled is the apparent issue of "MORAL CHARACTER".

    I am secure in my belief that I will be considered a "RESIDENT" of San Diego County.

    I am secure in my belief that I have stated and justified "GOOD CAUSE".

    I am secure in my belief that the San Diego Sheriff's Department has improperly collected 100% of the fees for CCWs with initial applications.

    I am also secure in my beliefthat there are countless retired and current members of law enforcement who will offer opinions on my "MORAL CHARACTER".

    Here is a few of the areas that Los Angeles agreed to consider regarding CCW applicants.

    2. Good Cause. Good cause shall be deemed to exist, and a license will issue in the absence of strong countervailing factors, upon a showing of any of the following circumstances [emphasis added]:


    a) The applicant is able to establish that there is an immediate or continuing threat, express or implied, to the applicant’s safety, or the applicants family's safety, and that no other reasonable means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat. [emphasis added.]

    b)
    The applicant is employed in the field of security, has all requisite licenses, is employed by a security firm having all requisite licenses, and provides satisfactory proof that his or her work is of such a nature that it requires the carrying of a concealed weapon.

    c)
    The applicant has obtained, or is a person included within the protections of, a court order which establishes that the applicant is the on-going victim of a -threat or physical violence or otherwise meets the criteria set forth in Penal Code Section 12025.5.

    d)
    The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable property which it is impractical or impracticable to entrust to the protection of armored car services or equivalent services for safe transportation of valuables.

    e)
    The applicant establishes that he or she-is subject to a particular and unusual danger of physical attack and that no reasonable means are available to abate that threat. [emphasis added.]

    3. Favorable Factors.
    Among facts upon which the department will, in the exercise of its discretion, look favorably in considering applications are whether:

    a)
    the applicant has a demonstrated record of responsible handling of firearms;

    b)
    the applicant has a commitment to safe and responsible handling of firearms as shown by having voluntarily taken firearms training;

    c)
    the applicant has a record of good citizenship in general as evidenced, for instance, by service to the community through such activities as creditable service in the armed forces, including the National Guard and state militia or in the police reserves, or of active participation in charitable or public service organizations or activities or in political affairs;

    d)
    the applicant is trustworthy and responsible as evidenced, for instance, by employment history, positions held in civic, political, religious or secular achievements or record of personal accomplishment in other areas of endeavor;

    e)
    that the applicant suffers under a disability or physical handicap; including age or obesity, which hinders the applicant’s ability to retreat from an attacker.

    4.
    Unfavorable Factors. Factors which will bear negatively on issuance (unless they appear to be in the remote past) are:

    a)
    the applicant has a long-term history of mental or emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction;

    b)
    the applicant has a history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instrumentalities;

    c)
    the applicant has had a permit to own or carry a concealed weapon denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; [emphasis added.]

    d)
    the applicant has had a driver's license denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority;

    e)
    the applicant has a long-term record of irresponsible and dangerous behavior with automobiles as indicated by numerous convictions of serious driving offenses;

    f)
    the applicant has a long-term history of conduct from which it appears that he or she is not now of good moral character, trustworthy or responsible. While none of the foregoing. disqualify an applicant per se, a license will be denied if it appears, in the discretion of the department, that the applicant does not now have good character or that issuance of a license to him/her is not consistent with public safety.

    5. Presumption.

    Absent good cause for denial, persons having good cause as defined above shall be issued licenses for the maximum time period allowed by section 12050, and their license shall issue if the applicant is prohibited by law from possessing or acquiring firearms, or concealable firearms, or is below the age of 21 years.







  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Give 'em hell Ed.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the encouragement

    There is a motion to dismiss my Federal Lawsuit scheduled for December 21, 2009 in San Diego Federal Court.

    Some of these issues may be addressed in the scheduled hearing.

    I am confident that it will be an interesting hearing.

    Ed Peruta

    edperuta@amcable.tv



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    A PDF link to the original document is at the end of this post.

    THE INFORMATION TYPED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS AT BEST MISLEADING AS TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. AND THEY ARE STILL COLLECTING THE WRONG AMOUNT.

    This is some of the text from what the Sheriff’s Department wanted me to sign!!

    At best it is misleading and does not properly explain what happened and appears to contain a release and discharge relating to any legal action over the illegal conduct.

    Request is hereby made that under the authority of section 26906 of the Government Code and Board of Supervisor Resolution No, 62 dated October 22, 1970, the County Auditor and Controller draw his Warrant on the County Treasurer refunding the sum of $50.51 erroneously deposited in the County Treasury, The following are the facts constituting the erroneous payment:

    On the 3 day of February the sum of $63.14 was paid to Sheriff’s License Division for Initial CCW application. Receipt number _______ was issued to me.

    The refund is hereby requested for the reason that PER PC12054 ONLY 20% ($12,63) OF TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RETAINED BY ISSUING AGENCY -IF LICENSE NOT GRANTED REFUND REMAINDER AMOUNT OF $50.51

    The undersigned states: That the above claim and the items as set out are tru[/b]e an[/b]d [/b]co[/b]rre[/b]c[/b]t;[/b] and that the amount claimed is justly due.

    EXECUTED on MAY 5 2009 at SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct (CLAIMANTS SIGNATURE)

    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I hereby release and discharge The County Of San Diego and it's officers, employees, and agents, from all rights, demands, and causes of action of any kind, present or future, known or unknown, relating to this claim.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    UPDATE:

    The San Diego County Citizen's Law Enforcement Review Borad (CLERB) has acknowledged my complaint and been supplied with additional evidence to support the complaint.

    The San Diego Sheriff's Department has yet to acknowledge my complaint and will be provided with the additional information when an investigator is assigned.

    One only has to access the Sheriff's Department website on CCW application proceedures to see that their illegal activities on fees continues as of this date.

    If and when they change what is posted, we will know that they get the message.





  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    UPDATE:

    In the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department has fileda set of Points and Authorities, where they state facts and cite cases that go to the heart of the issues.

    Link to the recently filed Points and Authorities filed By San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/12....oppositon.pdf

    The court noted that in Los Angeles County, with a population of over 7 million, the sheriff had issued only 35[/b] licenses, while in Orange County, the sheriff had issued over 400[/b].

    Exactly on point, one Sheriff issued 400 STATE CCW PERMITS[/b] while Los Angeles issued only 35.

    Until ALL Sheriff’s in California are mandated to use a similar, (if not exact), set of guidelines to determine “GOOD CAUSE”, then individuals who possess good cause in one county will be denied for failing to have good cause in another.

    He fails to allege intentional discrimination by the Defendant and appears to claim that the sheriff has his own narrow interpretation[/b] of the residency requirement. As long as that interpretation is consistent[/b], the sheriff is not treating persons differently.

    Every Sheriff in California to ensure equal access to a CCW, must possess, interpret and apply a similar set of standards when determining the required good cause in part because the California Concealed Weapons Permit is a STATEWIDE PERMIT TO CARRY LOADED AND CONCEALED, and NOT a local county permit.


    Most of the facts and circumstances of this issue can be found in the link included in this posting.

    A hearing is scheduled in Federal District Court in San Diego on Monday December 21, 2009 at 10:30am.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I got this letter and check yesterday at the same time I received the Judge's decsion.

    I think it's a joke for the San Diego Sheriff's Department to nowsay:


    Please rest assured that this procedure has been corrected and updated in accordance to PC12054, and thank you for bringing it to our attention.

    I told them they were collecting the wrong amount with initial CCW applications early last year and it took till now for the meaning of the law to sink in.

    How many others are entitled to refunds on money taken improperly in the State of California?


    Attached is the PDF of the letter and check that I will donate to a worthy cause involving civil rights in San Diego.





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •