Firstly, it is a reply to your ‘answer’ of 8-11-05, reference my Grievance of July13, 2005, and second, to further enumerate my Grievances.

 Yes, on July 28, 2003, I did, in fact, agree to compromise with your Mr. Sokel about my Kosher Diet, (which is part of the practice of my religion).

 I did this as it was apparent that it was the only way to come even close to a Kosher diet.

 From the first the “compromise” was one-sided— — with kitchen staff seemingly incapable of understanding that “no dairy product with a flesh (meat) meat product in a meal”—means just that.

 To this day the refuse to “get it right.”

 At first they would simply ignore it, but after a lot of complaining they started (at lunch at least) to pretend to make an effort.

 However, when I received a meat sandwich, there would most times be a small particle of a cheese slice in the sandwich, and vice-versa.

 Other “objects” somehow found their way into my food—from the occasional hair and small pieces of scraps to the occasional small cricket and/or cockroach.  (The last incident being about 2 inches of the “rind” of a sausage slice between the cheese in my “cheese” sandwich on Friday, August 26, 2005.

However, the culmination of this adulteration was on December 15, 2004, when I was served a “Pubic Hair Sandwich.”

 To complain every time would have been a waste of time, so, for the most part I would simply throw the offending food in the trash.

 But about that Pubic Hair Sandwich incident:—

 Some may consider serving someone a Pubic Hair Sandwich to be amusing, however, I for one do not share that view.

 In #9 of your “answer,” you seem to be in possession of some of the facts; However, you also claim that your “records” do not show that I brought that incident to the attention of the officer at the time—therefore, I must ask the question: (1) How did the offending sandwich get to me, and (2) How did that offending sandwich get back to the kitchen without the officer to transport it???

 Magic??

 The following is an excerpt from my records of the incident:—

 On December 15th 2004, I was given a non-Kosher sandwich for lunch—said sandwich consisted of a slice of cheese with a slice of sausage between the slices of bread.

 I complained to Deputy Estill who distributing the meals, and he went to the kitchen to get the correct meal.

 When Deputy Estill returned he handed me a bag and left.

 I duly opened the bag and inspected the contents in front of several witnesses.   (Inmates Ron Kauffman, Mark Beabout, John Hancock, Wilfred Mead, Eugene Rasco, and others.— — In view of the security camera— —

 All of us were horrified to see ten or more black curly pubic hairs between the slices of cheese.

 This was obviously a deliberate act that was not only a denial of my right to practice my religion, but a clear and definite statement that Shasta County Jail had no intention of honoring its agreement to try to provide me with a Kosher Diet.

 Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, I am guaranteed the freedom to practice my religion, and failure to provide a religiously required diet is a blatant denial of that right.

 Not only was I upset, but other inmates were sickened, and felt threatened by the adulterating of the food.

 When Deputy Estill returned, I showed him the Pubic Hair Sandwich, and he took it away with him and returned with another one—assuring me that he had watched the cook prepare it.

 I checked, and there were no obvious foreign bodies in the sandwich.

 I duly filed a Grievance, and the following day the “Food Service Director” replied in person.   

 He (Mr. Dave Sokol) told me that my Kosher Diet lunch was prepared carefully by staff, and when dispatched it consisted of a meat sandwich, comprising of two slices of bread, two slices of “Turkey Ham” sausage and bananas.

 What arrived the first time was a ‘sausage and cheese’ sandwich.

 What the Deputy brought back form the kitchen was a cheese sandwich with ten (10) or more pubic hairs between two slices of cheese, which were enclosed by two slices of bread.

 Mr. Sokol further stated (in writing) that his cooks (plural) had “personally supervised this action.”

 He also stated, “How those pubic hairs got on your sandwich did so after the bag was given to you.”

 Actually the bag was handed to me by Deputy Estill in clear view of many other inmates, and the security video cameras, and I then opened it in the presence of and view of the aforementioned witnesses.

 Of course, a careful analysis of Mr. Sokol’s reply shows that at no time did the cooks (plural) who “personally” prepared my sandwich that “magically” changed from Turkey Ham to cheese, bother to deny complicity.

 This of course leaves few questions blatantly unanswered:

 The first and most obvious: “Why the heck did it take two or more cooks to prepare a single sandwich??”

 The, of course: “Why was the first sandwich wrong if, in fact, Shasta Jail Authorities were/are granting me the right (as guaranteed by the United States Constitution) to practice my religion by partaking of a “Kosher Diet?”

 Not to forget: “How did two slices of Turkey Sausage metamorphose into two slices of cheese?”

 Also: “Who’s black pubic hairs were they?”

 None of the above questions have been answered to date, even though they were E-mailed to Sheriff Pope in December of 2004.

 In your answer, Lt. Von Rader, you mentioned your “good faith belief” that my meals are being prepared in accordance with the agreement reached with food services Director Sokol.

 Presumably the public hairs were Mr. Sokol’s way of saying “Happy Chanukah”???

   To move on to the next point:—

 As for your assertion that I have been served Kosher food— —

 Since when are apparently human pubic hairs Kosher??

 Then: Your records on the confiscation of my Tanakh that was the last time that I bothered to write it up— — Actually, the last time that Dep. Burch seized religious material was May 3, 2005, when she seized a Sabbath Guide, “Teach Yourself to Read Hebrew,” and some pamphlets on the Holy Days.
 After the last time I wrote up a seizure, several other guards have quietly retrieved my Tanakh from wherever it ended up and returned it to me.

 However, this in no way obviates the primary seizure and subsequent denial of the right to practice my religion.

 You claim that denial of Consular access in the early stages of my incarceration “has been addressed.”

 Presumably, you are aware of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Treaty, and California Penal Code §834(c).

 You also apparently are aware that I requested, and yes, I also begged to be allowed to contact the Australian Consul General.

 That, to date, no one has officially notified the Australian Consular representative that I am incarcerated despite my asking Jail Authorities to so notify the Consulate on November 14, 2002.

 That I have established contact by devious means through the good offices of a United States Mail Carrier (indirect contact as mentioned in Mr. Frank’s letter dated 16 April 2004), is not a matter of record.

 If you wish to peruse Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention Treaty, you will see that Jail Authorities were bound by International Treaty to contact the Australian Consulate when I requested same in November of 2002.

 That, to date, Jail Authorities have not so contacted the Consulate is also a matter of record.

 When I contacted the Consulate-General to acquainting them with the fact that my medication was being “played with” in an obvious message to me on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, they still had not been officially notified of my incarceration.

Further, if you will read my “Petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241, for Write of Habeas Corpus,” page 2 of the additional pages, lines 12 thru 14, you will see that I do truly acknowledge that now I do have access to my Country’s Representatives.

 If an embezzler stops embezzling, does that make the earlier embezzlement a “non-event”?

 The same if I was initially denied Consular Access.

 A breach of an International Treaty was committed.

 A Contravention of U.S. Federal, and California State Laws was perpetrated. 

 Now, either Shasta County is a Sovereign Nation and has not entered into the above mentioned treaty, or Shasta County is part not only of the State of California, but also part of the United States.

 In point of fact, as per discussion with a representative of the Israeli Consulate, it would appear that Shasta County wishes that all American Citizens should be treated the same way than it (Shasta) has treated this Foreign National, i.e. that the home country of an incarcerated Foreign National need not be notified for at least one thousand days!

 In point of fact, the above is the reason I particularly needed the full names of Deputies Davis, Jackson, Seal, Starrs, Bennas & Burch—to include their identities in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 Civil Rights Action.  (Also in that section of the Writ will be included Sheriff Pope, Under-Sheriff Schaller, Capt. VanBuskirk, and of course yourself.

 Next shall we deal with the terroristic threats by Jail Staff?

 As you well know, two attempts were made to extinguish my life on April 19, 2003, and again on April 21, 2003, in an obvious endeavour to prevent me from speaking to a Consular Official, who was to visit me on the following Tuesday or Wednesday.

 (Said poisoning attempt is described in page 1 of additional pages of Petition previously mentioned—lines 19 thru to end of paper, and page 2, lines 1 thru to line 11.

 If you wish to peruse lines 8 thru 11, you will note that I have succinctly mentioned the terroristic threat in Question three.

 To expand:—

 After the two attempts to murder me by over-medicating me, I made numerous complaints and grievances, which were ignored until on June 17, 2003, one was answered.

 In that reply Capt. VanBuskirk said that he will have a staff member talk to you Re. Your charges.”

 I was called to booking where Deputy Starrs confronted me and angrily told me that, (1) the Jail as not responsible for over-medicating me, and (2) If I did not stop accusing Jail Staff of attempted murder, that one day I would wake up and find myself dead.

 This is truly a terroristic threat, issued according to Dep. Starrs by “The Captain” and delivered by him (Starrs).

 Let us move on to the issue of my teeth, hearing aids, and glasses, shall we?

 You claim to have spoken to the arresting officer and Deputy Bertain.

 First, the arresting officer was one Deputy Pete Holman of the Lassen County Sheriff’s Department.

 Detective Bertain was there, primarily I believe, to perpetrate a robbery by threatening the health and welfare of a disabled American Veteran.

 Detective Bertain is the individual who, under oath, on January 31, 2005, did testify that he was trained to lie effectively while being trained as a Peace Officer, which is a matter of record, and said record is available from the Court Reporter.

 Shall we expand on that subject, as it truly has a bearing, or let the record stand?

 Back to the goings-on at 428-660 Little Valley Road, in Little Valley, Lassen County, California on Tuesday, November 12, 2003—the home of Raymond John Moody, a disabled (100% disabled) American Vietnam War Veteran, where I was staying.

 Deputy Holman arrested me and handcuffed me and took me to his car, where I was made to sit in the rear seat area.

 Said vehicle was parked outside the property on Little Valley Road.

 Detective Bertain harassed and threatened me because I refused to sign a piece of paper he had that would permit him to seize my property.

 I repeatedly told him “Not without a search warrant.”

 When he repeatedly thrust a piece of paper at me to sign, I told him to “use it for a suppository” (or words to that effect).

 Detective Bertain told me that I would stay “there”(meaning in the back of the Lassen County Cruiser parked in the street) till he got my computer.

 Subsequently he waited 51 1/4 hours to obtain a search warrant, thereby tainting any potential evidence contained therein.  (The search warrant was obtained November 14, 2002 at 1:40 p.m., the computer was, in fact, seized on November 12, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.)

 Detective Bertain was more interested in inconveniencing me and threatening me than he was in my glasses, teeth or hearing aids.

 I will ask you to answer a simple and logical question, Lt. Von Rader: Assuming that I was arrested and going to an uncertain future, would I not have wanted the prosthetic parts of my body with me??

 By now, Lt. Von Rader, you will realize that I am reasonably intelligent, and that I would have wanted at least my teeth and glasses, to masticate my food, and to see, let alone to have my hearing aids to allow me to hear.

 Further, about the antics of Detective Bertain—

 On July 2, 2002, Detective Bertain and Detective Gonzales did stop me, and take me unwillingly to another place—claiming that they had not arrested me or —

 Armed men had detained me, preventing me from engaging in lawful commerce, and, after telling me I could co-operate “voluntarily or in handcuffs,” took me to another location to interrogate me for over four hours.

 If, in fact I was not under arrest (Cal. P.C. §835, states an arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer. . .)  Then I was being kidnaped (Cal. P.C. §207.   Kidnaping defined.  States:—Every person who forcibly, or by any other means or instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any person in this state, and carries the person into another country, state, or county or into another part of the same county is guilty of kidnaping.) 

 Allow me to expand:

 On the morning of July 2, 2002, I was lawfully driving along Highway 299 East through Fall River Mills, when I was stopped by Detective Gonzales, who told me he wanted me to wait for “another officer.”  I told the Detective that I had to go somewhere and he told me “You are not under arrest.  However, you can wait either voluntarily or in handcuffs.”  I immediately asked to be allowed to use a nearby (across the road at the “Bullets 2 Booze” Gas Station) public phone to call the Australian-Consulate, which is a perfectly normal and legal request to be made by a Foreign National.  Detective reiterated his earlier statement by saying, “You don’t seem to understand—you can wait either voluntarily or in handcuffs.”

 Ergo, I was either (1) under arrest and therefore entitled to contact the Australian Consulate, or (2) I was being kidnaped as defined under California Penal Code §207.

 If, as Detective Bertain subsequently claimed I was not under arrest, then Detective Bertain and Gonzales are conjointly guilty of kidnaping.

 On the other hand, if, in fact they had arrested me they had conjointly breached California Penal Code §834c, U.S. Federal Statutes, and International Law.

 By the very request of contact with the Australian Consular or Embassy, I was involving the equivalent of “Miranda” rights, and so interrogating and further detention without charges was, in fact unlawful.

 For this reason, I am including these acts in a Federal 42 U.S.C. §1983, Civil Rights Violation Claim.

 Lt. Von Rader, in a way you are to be commended for blindly supporting your subordinate officers, however, by using half-truths, distortions of facts, and outright lies, your subordinates have actually proves that they are not worthy of your trust and support.

 Let us expand the issue of the “over-medication” shall we Lt. Von Rader —

 You have somehow forgotten to address my previous (7-13-05) grievance fully.

 You have, in fact, totally ignored my grievance about a total of at least 3 (three) attempts by Sheriff’s Staff or contractors to kill me.

 The first incident (as related on pages 4 & 5 of that Grievance) occurred when I was lying on a Gurney in the Emergency Room of Mercy Medical Center—in extremis with a blood pressure of 217 over 123.

 Detective Bertain who, by his own claim, is a qualified “First Responder” well knew that a blood pressure that high (217/123) was bordering on a catastrophic stroke.

 Said Detective did repeatedly badger and question me until he saw a doctor coming and left quickly—as described on my previous grievance.

 To expand on the “over-medication” and subsequent, and more recent gaffes in your medical department:—

 On April 19, 2003, as previously described in that other grievance, I was over-medicated and did, in fact, nearly die.  Then on April 21, 2003, Staff again attempted to over-medicate me.  The fact that Australian Consular Officials had contacted Deputy Slater on April 28, 2003, and he had sent me a note of warning me of an impending Consular visit, would appear to be interconnected specially considering the actions of Jail Staff earlier during my incarceration.  As I stated in that other Grievance and in the Federal Petition, one attempt to poison me could be construed as possibly an “accident,” however, two attempts come under the heading of highly suspicious, and two attempts in conjunction with the warning from Deputy Slater, come under the heading of definitely probably attempted homicide.  The warning from Deputy Slater comes under the heading of definitely probably attempted homicide.  

 Then there was the warning issued thru my medication on Wednesday, August 7, 2005, when, a few hours after I mentioned the April ‘03 attempts on my life thru medication, my evening medication was unavailable because of “lack of supplies”—however, after I wrote a Grievance—at 11:00 p.m. my medication was available.

 Certainly, taken on its own the August 17, incident may have been the result of incompetence, however after the exchange of grievances, on the morning of Saturday, August 20, 2005, my morning medication was unavailable because of “lack of supplies,” then mysteriously said medication was available on the morning of Sunday, August 21, 2005.

 The message was sent and received and I believe the message is:— “Keep Quiet because we control your life thru your medication.”

 The very fact that the Shasta Sheriff’s Dept. Officials failed to notify (immediately) the Australian Consulate-General of the incarceration of an Australian National within Shasta County jurisdiction, demonstrates a lamentable lack of respect for California State Law (Penal Code §834 (c)), United States Law, and International Law and Treaties.

 The obvious conclusion, that Shasta County Officials believe that all Americans should be treated in a like manner in foreign lands, is a damming indictment of Sheriff Jim Pope and his minions.

 That Sheriff Pope has assumed the guise of a de-facto plenipotentiary, or sovereign ruler, of an independent or sovereign nation has become obvious.  That his nation has no constitution, rule of law, true currency, independent taxation structure, or even a basic infrastructure does not appear to hamper his megalomania.

 When the indubitable “flow-on” from his (and/or his minions’ and cats paws’) actions begins to effect the lives and liberty of Americans in Foreign lands, there may be some denials, maybe some lying and cover-ups, but essentially the instigators of this idea (that Americans should be treated exactly as foreign nationals are treated in Shasta County when in a foreign land), will most probably be conspicuous by their absence.

 The following is a second major Grievance, etc.  sent to the Administrator of Shasta County Jail, and itemizes (among other things) how the authorities in Shasta treated one Foreign National—from raping him, depriving him of prosthetics, trying to kill him to avoid having him talk to outsiders (making it look “accidental” of course), and generally playing games with State, Federal and International Laws.

September 2005, Moshe I. Stein