Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Jan 3 San Pedro PRAR Request Denied!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Katarina A. Thomas, Lieutenant Acting Officer-in-Charge, Discovery Section, Risk Management Division denied my PRAR request in its entirety.

    Attached in the second post is my initial request and all other documents will be attached asap. I was keeping my PRAR request quiet however their arrogance convinced me that the full might of the OCDO community needs to be brought against them.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Ok I thought there was a way to consolidate all my documents onto one post but I guess not sothey will just be posted below until I find out how to put them all up here.


    Edit to add armys video of our false arrest. Sorry LAPD but you did arrest us.

    http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainment byLAPD.flv

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hell, eh?, ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Please repost...2nd post blank?!?

  4. #4
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    "Risk Management Division"

    Guess that says it all !

    Well, I suppose that all those who witnessed and personally experienced LAPD overplaying its hand on January 3 should not be terribly surprised by this denial.

    This incident is so strikingly similar to that of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO case of MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY . . .

    http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009% 2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

    . . . that LAPD and City attorneys are almost certainly withholding thisdamning evidence for fear of self-incrimination. Some risk management strategy, huh?

    And St. John won his case without the benefit of nofewer than two video cameras recording the entirefiasco from start to finish.

    Now, a written complaint is the next step in the process, is it not?


  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    $1,000,000 is a nice round number.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    A ECNALG wrote:
    "Risk Management Division"

    Guess that says it all !

    Well, I suppose that all those who witnessed and personally experienced LAPD overplaying its hand on January 3 should not be terribly surprised by this denial.

    This incident is so strikingly similar to that of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO case of MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY . . .

    http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009% 2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

    . . . that LAPD and City attorneys are almost certainly withholding thisdamning evidence for fear of self-incrimination. Some risk management strategy, huh?

    And St. John won his case without the benefit of nofewer than two video cameras recording the entirefiasco from start to finish.

    Now, a written complaint is the next step in the process, is it not?
    http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1164609.shtml

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    I didn't know they could deny the request, these are PUBLIC records. Time to get a lawyer. I'll pitch in for the fees. Would CGF be interested in helping to get these records?

    ETA: I smell a rat!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  8. #8
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Risk Management Division eh?

    The next step up from a PRAR is a subpoena!
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    My PRAR request:
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    LAPD extension:
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    PRAR Denial:
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

    Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

    LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Did they cite a reason for their denial?

    Are there reasons stipulated in the law that allows for denial of a PRAR request?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Here are the rules for such a request.

    http://www.harp.org/og/cpra.htm#6250

    6253.1.
    • (a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
      • (1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
      • (2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
      • (3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Did they cite a reason for their denial?

    Are there reasons stipulated in the law that allows for denial of a PRAR request?
    The denial document is posted as a link. If you read it you will get your answers.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

    Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

    LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
    Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

    The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Of course, the incident never happened!

    X-files!

    This doesn't sound right...I'll bet this answer was constructed in hopes you will get discouraged and go away. Maybe the LAPD is knowingly violating the law because, if you do persist, they are no worse off under a judges order to comply than if they complied with the request in the first place.

    Maybe you can file a compliant with Jerry Brown on the LAPD handling of your request. He might be looking for some good publicity to expose an LAPD cover-up! I heard he's running for governor.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Of course, the incident never happened!

    X-files!

    This doesn't sound right...I'll bet this answer was constructed in hopes you will get discouraged and go away. Maybe the LAPD is knowingly violating the law because, if you do persist, they are no worse off under a judges order to comply than if they complied with the request in the first place.

    Maybe you can file a compliant with Jerry Brown on the LAPD handling of your request. He might be looking for some good publicity to expose an LAPD cover-up! I heard he's running for governor.
    Maybe not during his elect

  19. #19
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Nopal wrote:
    We-the-People wrote:
    Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

    Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

    LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
    Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

    The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.
    Yes it is...and maybe they aren't finished with their investigation! Maybe the UOC'ers were marked as a new gang. Maybe they're still watching those who participated.

    The denial letter sure made it sound like something more was going on behind the scenes. Though at least they made it was clear thatthey haven't re-evaluated or changed their policies for law-abiding UOC'ers (item #7). They're not exactly what I'd callaConstitutionally focused PD.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Nopal wrote:
    We-the-People wrote:
    Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

    Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

    LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
    Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

    The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.
    Yes it is...and maybe they aren't finished with their investigation! Maybe the UOC'ers were marked as a new gang. Maybe they're still watching those who participated.

    The denial letter sure made it sound like something more was going on behind the scenes. Though at least they made it was clear thatthey haven't re-evaluated or changed their policies for law-abiding UOC'ers (item #7). They're not exactly what I'd callaConstitutionally focused PD.

    look for the keyword.

    (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
    the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
    to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
    vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
    incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deep Behind Enemy Lines, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    I strongly urge anyone considering doing PRARs about CCWs or OCing incidents to first contact "Team Billy Jack" at http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/ They've got a TON of experience doing forensic analysis of CCW applications via PRARs and may help you in wording (almost designing) your request so that you are successful in getting what you want.

    Tell them "Paladin" from CGN sent you.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Paladin4CA wrote:
    I strongly urge anyone considering doing PRARs about CCWs or OCing incidents to first contact "Team Billy Jack" at http://www.concealedcarry.com They've got a TON of experience doing forensic analysis of CCW applications via PRARs and may help you in wording (almost designing) your request so that you are successful in getting what you want.

    Tell them "Paladin" from CGN sent you.
    All I see there is clothes for sale??? Concealed carry Clothiers
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deep Behind Enemy Lines, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    Paladin4CA wrote:
    I strongly urge anyone considering doing PRARs about CCWs or OCing incidents to first contact "Team Billy Jack" at http://www.concealedcarry.com They've got a TON of experience doing forensic analysis of CCW applications via PRARs and may help you in wording (almost designing) your request so that you are successful in getting what you want.

    Tell them "Paladin" from CGN sent you.
    All I see there is clothes for sale??? Concealed carry Clothiers
    Sorry about that. I've fixed the link.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    All I see there is clothes for sale??? Concealed carry Clothiers
    WOW. Those are some seriously ugly vests. I may not have beans for fashion sense, but WOW.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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