2. Executive Summary of current results (see also "implications appendix", page 16): UNIFIED COUNTY-WIDE CCW AGREEMENT (1991 version via WC) 1

Transcription

1 1. Introduction: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CCW: The rest of the story PRELIMINARY 7/6/00, by Jim March, uses PRAR data from the office of Chuck Michel TOP SECRET: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE WITHOUT ADVISE OF COUNSEL!!! Using Public Records Act Requests, Chuck Michel s office asked for CCW data from the towns of San Pablo, El Cerrito and Walnut Creek. Richmond s PRAR is pending, and for reasons that ll be rapidly clear we re going to hit every other town in the county other than the four that hire PD services from Sheriff Rupf: Danville, Orinda, San Ramon and Lafayette. 2. Executive Summary of current results (see also "implications appendix", page 16): Walnut Creek and El Cerrito basically admit policies whereby only "gov t connected individuals" gain permits from their agencies, in direct violation of Salute vs. Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557. The real interesting part is the responses from Walnut Creek and San Pablo detailing a "county unified CCW plan" whereby all the agencies agree to extreme restrictions on CCW issuance. Walnut Creek s version was dated 1991 and was apparently compiled by the Pittsburg Police Department, while San Pablo s was much newer: 3/99. There were few if any notable changes over the decade in question. These documents prove that Sheriff Rupf knows that the cities are being extremely stingy with CCWs, making permits "very rare". What s rare is also valuable, and Sheriff Rupf has taken advantage of that enhanced value by milking the CCW system for campaign contributions and other political favors, selectively violating the agreement to use an "extraordinary good cause" standard where his cronies are concerned. This is a breakthrough. It proves Rupf knows what the cities are up to, probably in other areas as well such as regular denials of the application forms. Since the last agreement was in 3/99, we know the agencies are all in contact with each other and the 1999 agreement specifically mentions Sheriff Rupf not issuing within towns unless a Chief invokes Penal Code 12050(g) and "exits the CCW biz". At the very least, Rupf is committing conspiracy to violate civil rights, and there s a decent chance so are the various cities. These "secret protocols" are proof. INDEX Document Set Page UNIFIED COUNTY-WIDE CCW AGREEMENT (1991 version via WC) 1 UNIFIED COUNTY-WIDE CCW AGREEMENT (1999 version via SP) 6 WALNUT CREEK S CCW POLICIES/PRACTICES 10 EL CERRITO S CCW POLICIES/PRACTICES 12 SAN PABLO S CCW POLICIES/PRACTICES 14 APPENDIX A: Implications in detail! 16 APPENDIX B: Demographics data, Contra Costa County 17 Compiled by Jim March, Equal Rights for CCW Home Page: jmarch@ricochet.net Fax: Pager: of 18

2 1991 CCW agreement, page one, supplied by WCPD, created by Pittsburg PD(?) 2 of 18

3 IMPORTANT: per this, you get pre-screened before being allowed to formally apply on paper! This matches Sheriff Rupf s formal published policies as of CCW agreement, page two, supplied by WCPD, created by Pittsburg PD(?) 3 of 18

4 1991 CCW agreement, page three, supplied by WCPD, created by Pittsburg PD(?) 4 of 18

5 1991 CCW agreement, page four, supplied by WCPD, created by Pittsburg PD(?) 5 of 18

6 1999 CCW agreement, page one, supplied by SPPD NOTE THE STATED RADICAL DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING RESERVE/JUDGE CCWS! That's illegal Salute vs. Pitchess specifically bars any such discrimination on that basis, here we have it in writing for the whole county!? 6 of 18

7 1999 CCW agreement, page two, supplied by SPPD JACKPOT! Under "procedure" above, the Sheriff is involved in this process along with the Chiefs he will not issue to a town resident unless that town's Chief "isn't issuing at all", which would be pursuant to Penal Code 12050(g). In other words, "In the event where a municipal law enforcement jurisdiction DOES elect to remain involved in CCW", the Sheriff won't have anything to do with applicants from that town. And per this same document the towns are highly restrictive far more restrictive than Rupf is with his campaign contributors. See also the "Contra Costa Cronies Roster" file from my site. Bingo criminal conspiracy to violate Federal 14 th Equal Protection principles. We're gonna clean their clocks. BONUS: The policies have changed so that people are now allowed to apply the very same month Rupf's policies changed in the same fashion (in response to my first suit?) on 3/24/99. Collusion! 7 of 18

8 1999 CCW agreement, page three, supplied by SPPD 8 of 18

9 1999 CCW agreement, page four, supplied by SPPD 9 of 18

10 Walnut Creek PD can talk all they want about their policies but this memo outlines the reality: reserve officers only. 10 of 18

11 Here s WCPD s "local rules" for CCW issuance, note the similarities with the county-wide "model plan" in terms of ease of access to permits further evidence the "county-wide secret protocol" is real. Stringent requirements alone isn't illegal, but Sheriff Rupf knows of this and issues with NO "good cause" to cronies. 11 of 18

12 12 of 18

13 (Note: EC s city attorney is Howard Stern. There s another city attorney in CA name of Samuel L. Jackson!) As they ve so kindly documented, they ve slowly winnowed out every permitholder except one Judge and one reservist. See also Salute vs. Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 this is specifically forbidden. 13 of 18

14 First San Pablo-specific page no problems so far, but note the date above 14 of 18

15 OOOPS! Effective 1/1/99 that San Pablo $300 "investigation fee" became illegal per Penal Code 12054(d). 15 of 18

16 A timeline: Appendix A: Implications of this document set 1991: the county-wide agreement specifies that permit applicants do NOT get the blank application forms prior to a "pre-screening". See page 2 of this document. Not only was this illegal as hell (see also Salute vs. Pitchess, and a plain reading of PC12050 supports a "right to apply") it prevented comparisons between people getting denied and those approved. On paper, there s no denials and no tracking of the denied. 1997: Steve Jacobsen, Esq, files PRAR against Sheriff Rupf. Rupf s policies as of 4/1/97 or so clearly agree with the county-wide policy of 1991 pre-screening for application forms. Of the 18 applications handed out between 1/1/96 and 1 st quarter of '97, all were approved. 3/9/99: applicant Jim March (yours truly) attempts to apply with CC Sheriff's office, pays drop-in visit to Lt. Wayne Willett. Upon Willett's learning of my Richmond residency, I am forced to leave his office without the application forms. This matches both the '91 county-wide and '97 Sheriff policies. 3/15/99: I file suit against Sheriff Rupf, CC County and Richmond over CCW corruption, equal protection violations and illegal procedures, notably the denial of application forms. I filed at the courthouse then walked a copy over to Willett. I explained that it was a "preliminary heads-up" prior to formal service to follow soon. 3/17/99: Lt. Willett writes me a memo correcting himself, explaining that I do indeed have a "right to apply" for a permit and includes the application, proving that I was denied it back on 3/9/99. The memo states that my Richmond residency makes them the "proper issuing authority" and that his office will probably deny me. 3/24/99: Sheriff Rupf publishes a new 18-page CCW policy manual, stating that everyone "has a right to apply" and "has a right to the blank application forms". It appears hastily written, with too many spelling and grammatical errors to count plus other assorted weird typos. There's two mistakes in the title alone J. Sometime in 3/99: a new county-wide "model CCW protocol" is published by the CC County Police Chief's Association, see page 6 of this document. It agrees with Rupf's "right to apply" policy manual of 3/24/99. The "model agreement" specifies Rupf's role in non-issuance within towns, so Rupf could hardly be ignorant of it. NOTE: at every significant moment, the county-wide agreement matches Rupf's policies of the time. That and the references to the Sheriff's role in the Police Chiefs Association document form nearly indisputable evidence of collusion between Rupf and the Chiefs they are acting together to nearly eliminate CCW issuance within the towns, deliberately violating Salute vs. Pitchess in that they strongly favor gov't employees and refuse to "make an individual determination and investigation into every case" as per the court in Salute. The overall trend of the policies is to completely deprive the lower-income, higher-minority-population areas from any chance at a CCW, regardless of "good cause". This is a deliberate 14 th Amendment equal protection violation on a par with the worst episodes of "Jim Crow" thought dead and buried decades ago. Sheriff Rupf has selectively violated his own "extraordinary good cause" principle (identical wording with the county-wide policies) in the cases of the politically connected, campaign contributors and those wealthy enough to pose a major threat of getting lawyers together and attacking Rupf in court. This is yet another type of equal protection violation, illegal per the Fed 14 th Amendment and California Constitution Article 1 section 7b. Sheriff Rupf violated discovery in trial #1: he was asked to turn over all records of cross-jurisdictional agreements. If asked again in a second trial, he'll lie yet again and this time we'll be ready to catch him out on perjury, obstruction of justice or something similar J. That's why this doc is "top secret" to catch Rupf lying. 16 of 18

17 APPENDIX B: Demographics data, Contra Costa County From: STATE OF CALIFORNIA January 11, 2000 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - LABOR MARKET INFORMATION DIVISION LABOR FORCE DATA FOR SUB-COUNTY AREAS (Data Not Seasonally Adjusted) 1998 BENCHMARK *Monthly sub-county data are derived by multiplying current estimates of county-wide employment and unemployment by the respective employment and unemployment shares (percentages) in each sub-county area at the time of the 1990 Census. Sub-county labor force is then obtained by summing employment and unemployment, and the result is divided into unemployment to calculate the unemployment rate. Based on Each Area s 1990 Census Share of County Employment and Unemployment* This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment, since 1990, are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level (i.e., that the shares are still accurate). If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. All unemployment rates shown are calculated on unrounded data. These data are not seasonally adjusted. CCD stands for Census County Division. CDP stands for Census Designated Place. County Data are for December (Preliminary) 1999 Labor Employ- Unemployment Census Ratios Area Name Force ment Number Rate Emp Unemp Contra Costa County 501, ,700 12, % Alamo - CDP 7,480 7, % Antioch - city 36,870 35,690 1, % Concord - city 74,310 72,670 1, % Danville - city 21,000 20, % El Cerrito - city 14,300 14, % El Sobrante - CDP 5,960 5, % Hercules - city 11,510 11, % Lafayette - city 15,240 15, % Martinez - city 21,420 21, % Moraga Town - city 9,860 9, % Oakley - CDP 10,550 10, % Orinda - city 10,000 9, % Pinole - city 11,320 11, % Pittsburg - city 27,260 26, % Pleasant Hill - city 22,170 21, % Richmond - city 49,040 46,760 2, % Rodeo - CDP 4,330 4, % San Pablo - city 12,810 12, % San Ramon - city 25,710 25, % Tara Hills - CDP 3,180 3, % Vine Hill - CDP 1,920 1, % Walnut Creek - city 38,010 37, % West Pittsburg - CDP 9,450 9, % Jim again. There s six areas of county land that the Sheriff considers his jurisdiction and have high unemployment numbers: El Sobrante, West Pittsburg, Rodeo, Oakley, Tara Hills and Vine Hill. But they re all very small. The towns with an unemployment rate of 1.6 or greater are all outside of the Sheriff s self-stated jurisdiction except for tiny Moraga with their own PD; the other wealthy towns of Danville, Lafayette, San Ramon and Orinda all contract with the Sheriff therefore the Sheriff is the sole authority. Pleasant Hill seems to be an anomaly. 17 of 18

18 Let s look closer All data taken from a demographics search engine by the Association of Bay Area Governments based on 1990 census: CITY % White Income Median Housing Population Lafayette 93.0 $102,520 $388,500 23,501 Alamo 93.2 $139,444 $500,001 12,277 Orinda 91.7 $129,118 $433,600 16,642 Danville 91.5 $95,723 $360,100 31,306 San Ramon 87.4 $73,654 $315,400 35,303 Richmond 36.2 $49,463 $142,600 87,425 San Pablo 49.5 $38,993 $116,900 25,158 Pinole 71 $57,507 $192,400 17,460 Pleasant Hill 89 $61,767 $228,500 31,585 Walnut Creek 90.8 $74,877 $289,300 60,569 The bottom five are among the towns Sheriff Rupf redlined, the top five are in his self-imposed jurisdiction. Richmond was chosen because honestly, it IS a worst case scenario ; Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek are the biggest semi-wealthy towns that Rupf has blocked but as you can see, they re not in the same league as the four towns that buy services from the Sheriff plus Alamo, the single biggest unincorporated chunk. San Pablo and Pinole were picked at random from among the towns with their own PD. Anyone who thinks my numbers are skewed by my "selection of towns to focus on" can do a quick sanity check with the unemployment numbers (keeping in mind those are far more up-to-date), or go to the ABAG site listed above and extend this chart for every area your conclusions won t change from what you ll get here. Since these ABAG figures are now a decade old versus the newer unemployment data on the previous page, some figures may be skewed if anything, I'd think the relative prices and incomes in San Ramon and Lafayette are higher today than in Without question, Sheriff Rupf s stated town-discrimination policies are having an enormous impact on the relative race and income levels of the areas that are theoretically open to CCW access. Add in the Sheriff s heavy favoritism towards campaign contributors and you ve got an equal protection disaster in the works. One of Sheriff Rupf's goals is to make CCW "generally rare" so as to raise the economic value of each permit; sure, he could issue in Walnut Creek where there's some wealth to be found, but it would make it harder to block the really poor areas that like WC, have their own independent PDs. Last, Rupf s policies leave open issuance within a blocked town to reservists, so there s no way of knowing if badges are already being sold and a public safety threat is at large. True, the new rules from the middle of 1999 specify a longer 600+ hour training regimen for reservists, but that doesn't affect those already in the reserve programs. There's no way of knowing how many people have "purchased" law enforcement authority prior to the new rules. With money as big an influence as it clearly is, the threat is quite real. Compiled by Jim March, Equal Rights for CCW Home Page: jmarch@ricochet.net Fax: Pager: of 18