The power hungry abusers of civil rights have finally obtained the tools they have long sought.  With the current antiterrorism fever, the general populous seems to be apathetic to the increasing demands for the unfettered power by law enforcement and the criminal justice system.  People say, “They will not abuse this power.  These are our trusted government officials!”  Well, think again—power corrupts.  It always has.  This has been true throughout history, but we tend to ignore history.  The typical American will say, “Who needs history, this is a modern democratic society!” 

They may be right.  It appears we need only look at the present to find examples of abuses justified as necessary under the guise of preventing terrorism.  A case in point comes from Shasta County California, a far northern County with a criminal justice system disproportionately larger than one would expect based on a total county population of approximately 180,000. 

For example, how did Shasta County convince officials in the state of Michigan to incarcerate a person for approximately 45 days without an official warrant?  Did they call him a “Terrorist Kidnapper” over the telephone in order to justify his detention without due process?  We don’t know, and the officials are not talking now that they are being scrutinized.  However, it certainly looks suspicious since the man was held for 45 days, virtually incommunicado, in a Michigan facility, and then transferred to a Federal Detention Center where he was totally denied contact with the outside world.  A procedure our government has been assuring us is reserved for only the most dangerous suspected terrorists. 

That now raises the question: Is a custodial parent a terrorist, subject to this the type of treatment, because he did not give easy access of visitation to his drug-addicted ex-girlfriend who had lost custody of their child age four?  Or have our trusted government officials simply abused their new found powers? 

Here is what we do know: In late July of 2001, William Leon Lesperance, formerly of Burney, California, moved with his two young sons to Michigan.  He had full custody of the ten-year-old boy whose mother was his former wife.  He had physical legal custody of the four-year-old boy.  The mother of the four-year-old was his ex-girlfriend, who had lost custody of the boy when she was found to be unfit due to drug addiction.  There was a custody review scheduled in Shasta County that both parents missed.  On August 20, 2001, the non-custodial mother went to the Shasta County authorities and complained.  On September 20, 2001, the Shasta County District Attorney (“DA”) filed charges for a violation of California Penal Code §278.5(a), Child Custody Deprivation.  Then they further inflamed this charge by placing a large—red ink stamp across the face of the complaint stating, “CHILD ABDUCTION.”  However, this paperwork did not appear on the scene in Michigan until some time later, nor has his and the children’s location ever been unknown. 

Based on an unclear and apparently paperwork free arrangement, police in Midland, Michigan incarcerated Lesperance in the Midland County Jail on November 9, 2001.  This was the beginning of a nightmare for Mr. Lesperance that would result in him being treated like a Ben Laden terrorist for the next 90 days. 

From November 9, 2001, through January 24, 2002, some 75 days, Mr. Lesperance was held in the Midland, Michigan lockup virtually out of touch since phone calls were thirty dollars each.  Also, during this period he was not allowed to file a habeas corpus petition.  An actual warrant was not received from California for approximately 45 days. 

In the mean time, Midland officials phonied up a questionable “Fugitive Form Justice” misdemeanor complaint, with the exorbitant bail of $750,000, in order to justify their actions.  On January 23, 2002, Lesperance was listed as a “Federal Prisoner,” and transferred to the Bay County Jail in Bay City, Michigan.  On January 24, 2002, he was moved by federal marshals to the Milan Federal Detention Center in Milan, Michigan.  There he was held totally incommunicado.  On February 4, 2002, he was moved to the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center.  On February 8, 2002, he was flown in a federal airplane to Travis Air Force Base in California, and then taken to a federal holding facility in Sacramento, California.  From there he was picked up by Shasta County Sheriff Deputies Seals and Slatter, who transported him by a van to the Shasta County Jail in Redding, California.  Mr. Lesperance’s nightmare still continues, as the Shasta County authorities plan to prosecute him to the full extent of the law for kidnaping his own children of whom he had legal physical custody. 

During federal transportation, Lesperance was restrained with one of the “Black Box” electro-shock handcuff devices, to the point he could not move his arms.  He was so severely restrained that the guards had to assist him in urinating to a point just short of fondling him.  Also he was not fed for 18 hours the day he was flown to California.  Treatment we have been assured would only be used for a dangerous terrorist. 

There are some haunting questions raised as a result of hearing this story.  Under what authority did the federal government become involved in the detention and transfer of a prisoner who would normally be handled by the two states?  What was the authority for this warrant less detention?  Why are phone calls so expensive ($30 per call), nearly removing his ability to contact the outside world and his family?  Was the treatment received by Mr. Lesperance an abuse of the antiterrorism laws?  And finally, is this type of treatment the citizens of America have to look forward to under Big Brother tactics that the antiterrorism fear and policies have now rationalized? 

After reflecting on this it seems there is at least one more question.  Is this an isolated incident, or are there more?  It seems that now the officials in Michigan are extremely angry, claiming that Shasta County abused their trust and spirit of cooperation.  So, next one looks at the Justice System in Shasta County, and asks is there more?  It appears there is more—much more! 

Why would a small county, with a sparse population, place a large billboard sign along Interstate 5, bragging about how many sex offenders there were in Shasta County?  This had the appearance of being a proclamation that Shasta County was the sex offender Capitol of the world.  Surely the good citizens of Shasta County are not that disproportionately perverted.  This was reinforced when the good citizens demanded the removal of the offending billboard. 

A little snooping around turns up some examples of injustice in Shasta County.  While done within the tactical guidelines now acceptable by Big Brother Justice, it certainly appears fundamentally unfair—and most certainly is not what we were taught in eighth grade civics class—that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Instead, it appears that in an overzealous rage to fight crime, the focus is no longer on justice, but rather, the focus is on statistics winning at all costs to achieve hard on crime statistics.  Some cases in point follow: 

The black man who flagged down a Redding police officer, and reported he had been robbed by two teenage girls.  The Redding police, through “creative police tactics” twist this around to make the black man the criminal, and in allowing the two girls to escape culpability by alleging sexual abuse.  This certainly fits with the sex offender capitol of the world mind set.  But wait, it gets worse.  No matter who is ultimately determined guilty, the black man or two girls, the justice system never pursued the investigation into the black man’s allegations of being robbed.  They did, however, pursue charges against the black man with a vengeance.  After all, a black adult accused of taking liberties with two 17 year old white girls was manna from heaven for the prosecutors in Shasta County.  The black man was immediately thrown in jail.  Upon his appearance in court, he was appointed the Contract Public Defenders Office of Steven Kennedy, Katherine Pearl, and Elliot Burick to represent him. 

His attorney informed him that since he was a black man, and this was Shasta County, so therefore, he had better just plead guilty and take a plea bargain.  Otherwise, they would send him to prison for a very long time, because a black person could not receive a fair trial in Shasta County.  The obvious conclusion from this is: Blacks are not allowed their day in court in Shasta County according to the public defenders.  Why is this a surprise in a county that produces the likes of the Williams brothers, who’s infamy is from bombing Synagogues in Sacramento, and from murdering two homosexual men.  A county well known as a hot bed of skin head neo-Nazi members of a street and prison gang known as the “Nazi Low Riders” (“NLR”).  Subsequently, the black man requested the court appoint him a different attorney, citing “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,” a legal term.  He was denied the request by Judge Wilson Curle.  At this point he felt so oppressed that he felt he had no other choice but to accept a plea bargain, even though he continues to maintain his actual innocense.  The case is currently under appal, and the story can be found on the Internet “Story of Charles Peterson and Charles P. Peterson - Statement of Facts.” 

Then there is the story of the Redding man who’s teenage step-daughter learned from a school friend, that she could get back at her step-father for disciplining her by alleging she had been sexually abused by him.  Again, through “creative police tactics” (their phrase), sufficient verbiage was extracted from the girl by an overzealous police detective to put the man in jail for over six months, before he was cleared by lie detector tests, the final one being administered by the State Department of Justice.  From Shasta County’s standpoint, it really is about statistics—not justice.  Fortunately, the State Department of Justice straightened this one out. 

Another interesting story is that of an 18 year old boy, and I say boy, because having met him it is obvious he does not function as a adult.  As a child, he was in and out of foster homes and mental health treatment.  When he turned 18, he no longer qualified for many programs, but the system did place him in his own apartment.  However, he was unable to adequately function, and in a desperate cry for help he told a mental health therapist that he had molested a teenage boy.  The therapist notified the police and the process began.  He was arrested and placed in jail where he made several attempts at what was labeled suicide, but were actually more cry’s for help. 

He was appointed the Kennedy Office public defenders to represent him.  In a scenario repeated in almost every story, the Kennedy Office attorney, with no investigation, and acting like a surrogate prosecutor, threatened, frightened, and then coerced him into accepting a plea bargain.  Telling him that if he did not, he surely would be sent to prison for a very long time.  The boy was granted probation under the plea bargain, a probation the authorities knew full well he would not be able to function within.  And he didn’t, he had an anxiety attack at a counseling session, which they considered a probation violation.  At some point in the subsequent proceedings, the alleged victim and his older brother who had all been together with the defendant the day the supposed molestation occurred, decided to come forward.  They maintained that nothing ever happened. 

They even showed up in court wanting to testify that the charges were false.  The defendants attorney blocked this from happening.  Next, the defendant made a motion to have the Kennedy Office Attorneys replaced.  As usual, this was denied by Judge Wilson Curle, who sent this mentally disturbed boy off to state prison.  This is a classic example of a person who would have been better dealt with through the mental health system than through prison.  But, it appears there is money available to counties from the state and federal governments for criminal prosecutions, but not for mental health. 

The Kennedy Office Attorneys' names come up repeatedly in these stories.  Twice the Third Appellate Court has excoriated them for providing “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” (“IAC”).  The most severe sanction an attorney can receive from a high court, because this results in the conviction being overturned due to the attorney’s substandard poor performance.  Yet still nothing changes.  It is business as usual in Shasta County.  The public defenders don’t do their jobs, Judge Curle denies this, it’s just business as usual in the Shasta County Justice System.  The complaints are always the same: The public defenders don’t do anything; they do not meet privately with the defendant to get his side of the story, or explain the case to the defendant; they act like surrogate prosecutors and believe only the police reports; they do not investigate properly—and on and on. 

The public defenders have lost sight of the fact that this is designed to be an adversarial process, and their job is to represent the defendant, not to be a surrogate prosecutor and do the prosecutors job for him.  They, through fear and duress, coerce the defendant into taking uninformed plea bargains that may not be in the best interests of the defendant.  Then when the defendant finally objects, the Shasta County Courts fail to make the public defenders do their jobs, and at the same time, refuse to replace the public defender. 

It seems the public defenders have been caught twice in the recent past.  The Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District of California, found Elliot Burick of the Kennedy Office had provided Ineffective Assistance of Counsel to Jerry Wayne Morgan.  This was officially reported and published as People v. Morgan, (2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 1324, 111 Cal.Rptr 2d 502.  The people appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court, who on December 12, 2001, Case Number S101311, let the appellate court decision stand by refusing to review the case.  However, they did order the case “unpublished,” which raises the question—what are they trying to hide? 

This case was a Three-Strike case that received widespread media coverage, so we will skip those details, and talk about what was not in the newspapers.  The charges against Morgan in Shasta County resulted from a domestic squabble that resulted in both of them slapping each other.  The actual charge, “Domestic Violence,” would normally have been a misdemeanor since there were no visible injuries on either of them.  However, overzealous prosecutors elevated this to a felony, a common practice in Shasta County, when they learned Morgan had prior crimes that might possibly be strikes under the Three-Strikes Law.  The prior crimes they alleged as “Strikes” were from the State of Arkansas circa 1970.  Morgan’s attorney, according to the Appellate Court, did essentially nothing.  He should have investigated, where he could have learned that what California listed as two “Kidnaping” convictions from Arkansas, were in reality a physical altercation with police officers.  This occurred when Moran family members confronted some officers about a brutal beating death of one of the Morgan family cousins in a local jail at the hands of police officers. 

The Arkansas Code sections were later re-numbered, and the section number Morgan was convicted of in 1970 is no longer the same.  The other interesting thing is that the Governor Dale Bumpers of Arkansas determined there was good reason to grant Morgan “Executive Clemency” for these two convictions, which was granted January 10, 1972.  The two convictions which were actually for the same day, the event with the police officers, showed conviction dates in different years.  Shasta County chose not to recognize any of this, and is now in the process of attempting to re-convict Morgan—again under the three strikes law. 

The second condemnation of the Kennedy Office occurred when the Federal Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit found Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Wallace Endicott.  Endicott was remanded back to Shasta County for a new trial with a different attorney.  This time Jeff Gorder of the Jeffrey Jens Office secured Endicott’s release, after he had already served several years in prison waiting for the overturn of the original abuse of his rights by the Shasta County Justice System.  There is precious little information available about this case, as the case also appears to be unpublished.  Why do they find it necessary to hide these things? 

Many people have accused Judge Wilson Curle of bias and favoritism with the District Attorneys Office, and the Probation Department.  Whenever accusations of bias are made officially in a Motion to Rescue Judge Curle, he fights this tooth and nail.  A case in point went all the way to the California Supreme Court before Judge Curle was rescued.  This case is officially published as Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason), (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1057, 103 Cal.Rptr 2d 751, and the decision itself is about a technical point of law.  However, the background information that is also included is very interesting reading.  There the court reported “that Judge Curle changed his view. . .after hearing only from the prosecutor, thus giving the appearance of bias, but not actual bias.” Id 24 Cal. 4th at page 1061.  Judge Curle’s attempts to remain on the Gleason case cost Mr. Gleason over $50,000.00 in legal fees, leaving him destitute and requiring a public defender to complete the case, but now at the public expense. 

Following the Endicott and Morgan appellate court findings of IAC, numerous others have made requests to have various Kennedy Office Attorneys removed from their cases for the very same deficiencies, only to have these requests summarily denied by Judge Curle.  Some have even made complaints to the State Bar Association—unsuccessfully of course.  Business as usual in the Shasta County Justice System. 

There are also other types of abuses in Shasta County.  The California Penal Code, §1127a and §4001.1, set out guidelines for in-custody jailhouse informants.  Generally they may not accept pay for this service from the District Attorney, and they are only allowed to listen, they may not solicit information.  However, not in Shasta County where everything goes. 

The most notorious of these was a “Fresno Bulldog” gang member dropout named Armondo Silva, who aggressively sought information through threats, coercion, and even physical violence.  Silva would tell other jail inmates he worked for the District Attorney, and even that he received a salary.  He would attempt to convince a person that he liked him, and if the person would tell him about their case, he would talk to his employer the D.A., and get that person a “good deal.”  If someone confronted him about any of this, Silva would make a phone call, and within 15 minutes the Jail Deputies would come in and take that person to Administrative Segregation (“the Hole”).  Many were so depressed from the shabby treatment they were receiving from their public defenders, that in desperation they would take Silva up on his offer of help, only to later learn the hard way that the help was actually for the D.A., not the defendant. 

Silva would be ready to testify against them. He would even brag that the D.A. let him review the files on various defendants before he went after them for information.  If Silva could not extract the information from a person that he believed the D.A. wanted to hear, Silva would fabricate a story and pass that on to the D.A. 

A case in point was a 60 some year old man represented by one of the better attorneys, John Kucera.  The man was accused of raping a hooker, which is a strange concept.  How does one rape a hooker, when he has already paid for the service?  The old man was extremely frightened of being in jail, and terrified of the threat of prison.  A perfect target for Silva and his Flem flam man tactics, at which he was very good.  However, the story Silva extracted out of the old man was not incriminating, but more worthy of a “Saturday Night Life” skit script involving drug addicted hookers soliciting an old man.  Undaunted, Silva then fabricated the type of story he believed the D.A. wanted to hear.  When the old man’s attorney informed him that Silva was on the D.A.’s witness list, Silva found out, made a phone call, and within 15 minutes the old man was placed in Administrative Segregation.  However, Silva was left in the general population in spite of numerous complaints that were lodged against him.  Attorney Kucera then went to the Shasta County Jail Officials complaining about Silva’s illegal behavior.  This was ignored, as well as were complaints to the District Attorney.  Next Silva’s wife had Mr. Kucera appointed by the court to represent her, and she compromised him creating a conflict of interest before he realized who she was. 

At tome time there were three known informants, including Silva, in one jail housing unit.  One day Silva observed a fifty something year old man approaching the cell of one of the other informants.  Silva yelled at the old man ordering him away.  Probably jealous that someone else might be getting some information he might be entitled to.  Silva then assaulted and knocked the old man out cold on the floor.  Silva then threatened all of the potential witnesses to this assault.  Silva was a physically intimidating body-builder type.  He told everyone that he could do whatever he wanted because the D.A. would back him up.   Something he had already proved with his phone calls that had other moved to “the hole.”  Nevertheless, complaints were subsequently made to the Shasta County Sheriff Deputies.  They conducted a pseudo investigation, but took no action, leaving Silva to continue his victimization.  It appears he was indeed being protected by Shasta County. 

All of these various complaints, ones made against Attorneys to the Bar Association, ones against police to other police, ones against jail procedures to jail staff, ones against judges to other judges, all of these seem to go ignored or unresolved.  All of these government entities seem to do quite well using the “Brer Rabbit Defense.”  (See J. Harris, The Complete Tales of Uncle Remus.)  Where Brer Rabbit convinced Mr. Fox that the worse possible punishment he could receive was to be thrown into the briar patch.  When in reality being thrown into the briar patch would place Brer Rabbit on his home turf where he could escape Mr. Fox.  This is essentially what these government entities do.  They convince the public to allow them to investigate and police themselves, when in reality this method allows them to escape, just like Brer Rabbit.