Yankee Doodle Nazi Mind-Set
Letter #02
November21, 2006
In regards to: Case Number 12006-0507
City of San Jose
Office of Independent Police Auditor
ATTN: Ms. Susan Stauffer, Compliant Examiner
75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite L-93
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Ms. Stauffer
Thank you for your attentive and timely response to my inquiry. I sincerely appreciate clarification of your office limitations, scope and available options in my inquiry. In your receipt and consideration of mine complain, there have been several goals achieved thus far, and I thank you. However, there remain several other incident particulars needing further clarification, scrutiny and resolution.
First, there is the issue of a citizen being stop and detain by a policeman and disclosing the charge for detainment. I now understand this counties’ disclosure policy of criminal allegations, charges to an accused and general public. However, to speak frankly Ms. Stauffer, for an accused citizen in similar circumstances with like economic constraints and limitations as I, the policy sinks! A citizen accused of an offense and this jurisdiction’s mechanism of a citizen not being freely informed of allegation charges, nor freely permitted access to incident record of allegations without legal counsel, in my opinion, is a sinuous restrictive device prohibiting access. For the economically disadvantage segments of the community such a mechanism is tantamount to convoluted denial.
Secondly, in my circumstances, although the mystery allegations asserted were dropped, there are apprehensions of incident misrepresentation. There are several factors which stir uneasiness and question. (a.) There is no record of my account of the incident. (b.) This coupled with the officer’s puzzling agitation and vehement opposition to mine complaint filing. (c.) The mystery of the police photo shoots. If allegations, charges were dropped, what was the purpose of police photo shoots of the individual with dog? These particulars, along with the jurisdictions sinuous prohibitive mechanism to access of incident record and an Internet personal web site http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/TB5RHID426XPDECLSPOWW7EGP4 -with regional unpopular religious views cumulatively fosters suspicion, legitimate concern and question.
Furthermore, there are misgivings of occasional pass peculiar appearances-over several months-along routine routes of travel and my frequented places of commerce of the individual being more than just seemly innocent, happen chance occurrences. In light of this incident, these pass appearances emit a suspect odor of engineered orchestrations.
Ms.Stauffer I’ve lived in the Northern California Bay Area since 1981. I’ve resided in the City of San Francisco for approximately two years before relocating here. I believe I understand the regions empathy for a population segment which has suffered universal persecution, torment and loss of live. I agree it is loathsome and an abhorrence in a civil democratic society as ours when a fellow human being is persecuted, or murdered by twisted minds and motives for any reason. However, is it no less loathsome and an abhorrence in such a democratic society as ours when established authority allied with a region’s population segment clandestinely, employ retributive techniques and munitions to silence dissenting, unwelcome, or unpopular societal views? I must say, such manipulative deviousness by authority is an affront and taints all the high, noble and lofty ideals of which our Republic trumpets-liberty, justice and equality.
In answer to your question of being unclear regarding my petitions of the interrogating officer, the crux of the matter is “How is the incident characterized?” In order to acquire that information I ask your assistance. If I were permitted to file a complaint through your office it would relieve my anxieties of the process. I will contact your office for a scheduled appointment. Again Ms. Stauffer, I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration. Truly, venting frustrations and disappointments here has been therapeutic. Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Arthur V. Reyes
Letter #03
December 04, 2006
In regards to: Case Number I2006-0507
City of San Jose
Independent Police Auditor
ATTN: Ms. Susan Stauffer, Compliant Examiner
75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite L-93
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Ms. Stauffer
I appreciate your efforts and assistance in helping me resolve my concerns. At conclusion of our past phone conversation, I am now uncertain of the ability to withstand directly the bureaucratic process of filing a formal officer complaint. As you’ve detected during our phone conversation by stating to me, “please, calm down,” I continue to wrestle with present and past emotional duress and frustrations surrounding my adversities and misfortunes. Emotionally and psychologically, I am at wits end. Because of this, I feel it in both our interest-yours, for clarity in understanding my concerns and mine, for calm articulation of those concerns-to interface as much as possible via written correspondence. I trust you’ll agree.
During our phone conversation, in response to stating desire to file an assault counter claim, you stated all I had to do was go to the police station to file the claim. As cited in my initial complaint, (13Nov06), there are extenuating circumstances, veiled threat of being jailed, that has laden me with uneasiness and anxiety toward doing that. Moreover, I encountered very disconcerting, troubling officer behavior during the incident questioning
For the specifics of the veiled threat please reference my intial complaint, 13Nov06. The officer’s disconcerting behavior were his adamant, vehement dissuasion’s, and indirect, oblique prohibitons and opposition to my declarations, requests to file a counter claim. When I informed the officer that I am going to file an assault claim, he declare, “the matter has already been taken care of, I am documenting the incident here, now.” “There is no need for you to go to the police station to do that” or words to that effect. Thought the officer’s declarations were partly true, in the incident being documented, however, his series of declarations were convey in the context of and in response to I repeatedly stating a desire to file a counter claim. Thus, the officer’s statements were “deliberate misrepresentation not involving a direct lie,” intended to prohibit, suppress and deny me legitimate right to file a counter claim at that time.
Furthermore, puzzled over the legitimacy of such officer declarations at my intentions, I questioned the information by stating, “that seems awfully peculiar.” The officer restated his previous declaration several times, and each time his declarations became more heated and vehement than the former finally ending in the officer’s red face agitation at my intentions by turning away from facing me and taking a number of steps aside.
Moreover, I further was alarmed and bewildered when I inquired of the allegations against me and was informed that I had no right to such information in being the accused. That disclosure, though unknown to me but true, served only to fuel my uneasiness and anxieties of the incident and moment. Then, when a fellow officer noting the interrogating officer’s agitation, feisty marched toward the scene, I felt my physical well being now in jeopardy, threaten. With the other officer’s immediate, physically intimidating, looming presence, I felt this street interrogation now with heated, agitated police demeanor is escalating toward brute, strong-arm forced compliance and injury for me.
The above facts well serve to reveal the intensity of that moment and further serves to clarify that body mannerisms, demeanor, unspoken innuendo and word serve well to convey a message of opposition, prohibition and oblique denial by this officer of mine legitimate right to file a counter criminal complaint at that time.
For further account of the incident particulars, I enclose a preview copy of my counter assault claim. Also, please reference my initial police complaint of November 13, 2006 for your informational and review purposes.
In conclusion, thank you once more Ms. Stauffer for your efforts and attentiveness in this matter. I genuinely appreciate your impartial mediation.
Sincerely,
Arthur V. Reyes
Letter #04
December 21, 2006
In regards to: Case Number 12006-0507
City of San Jose, Office of Independent Police Auditor
ATTN: Ms. Susan Stauffer, Compliant Examiner
75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite L-93
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Ms. Stauffer, Just a few words to inform you of intentions to and status of the referenced police officer complaint, inquiry.
I’ve given a great deal of thought to the issue of filing a formal officer complaint with possible reprisal ramifications, and worst case scenarios of such. I’ve concluded given my economic constrains, emotional well-being and lack of sufficient, sustainable legal resources and counsel, I am presently unable to pursue my complaint further through your office.
Though forced to remedy my concerns through other viable mechanisms, the issue of attaining the specific criminal charges alleged remains the propellant and thrust of my protest. As cited in my correspondence of November 21, 2006, the incident in question is an element of and an attempt by this jurisdiction to sabotage and silence religious views, speech and prohibitions on sodomy and homosexuality in this region –government censorship. Its both odious and outrageous that a citizen in an open, supposedly free society as ours, while seeking specifics of alleged criminal charges filed against them, is forced to such recourse, (police complaint), as protest to convoluted jurisdictional record inspection prohibitions.
Furthermore, employing policemen as element to sinuously implement unlawful, unwritten societal behavioral decorum, (silencing denigrating religious views on sodomy http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/TB5RHID426XPDECLSPOWW7EGP4), and retaliating against a citizen when protesting such sinuous, religions voice violations is not only loathsome and odious, but repressive and tyrannical in any jurisdiction.
In closing, I thank you for your patience and understanding attending my concerns. Best wishes and may you have a Pleasant Christmas and Happy New Year Holiday!
Sincerely,
Arthur V. Reyes
Religious Alliance with State Authority
Religious bodies and clergy’s passive and active complicity, acquiesce to government’s intursive/oppressive citizen targeting practices.
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of Justice. . . “
– U. S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
Freedom of Speech
Norman Rockwell
“. . . Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil . . .”
Ephesians 6:12 NIV
THE CHURCH COMMITTEE FINDINGS, (Post-Watergate)
Required Reading
ISBN: 978-0-8014-8780-4
“LORD, there is no-one like you to help the powerless against the mighty. Help us, O LORD Our God, for we rely on you. . . “
II Chronicles 14:11 NIV
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within those barriers a man may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of auto-da-fe, but he is exposed to continual obloquy and persecution . . . Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him.
Before making public his opinions, he thought he had has sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize him loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage.
He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.”
Alexis de Tocquevill, French Writer
” . . . using dangerous and degrading tactics which are abhorrent in a free and decent society.”
” . . . Join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.”
It’s a citizen’s protest grievance web site, get over it!
"A Classic Government Smear Campaign" 
