[Bob Kuczewski]

The van was locked when I parked it, and I didn't see any signs of forced entry this morning.

Regarding the San Diego Police, I remain concerned about corruption. The Torrey situation has remained inexplicable in so many ways that it's hard to know how deep Jebb's contacts may run. That's not strong enough to be proof in court, but it does temper my decisions regarding the police in this city. The pictures on the first page of this topic suggest that something is rotten somewhere.

[Bob Kuczewski]

UPDATE

I just got word that the City has dropped the trespassing charge against me.

It would have been difficult to prove "trespassing" in a public park where anyone is free to show up at any time. In order to prove "trespassing" they would have to have proved that there was some special reason to exclude me from the park ... which, of course, they cannot do.

IMPORTANT MODERATOR NOTE:
The City has decided to not to charge me for trespassing (at this time), BUT the the Restraining Order case has NOT been dropped. We still need everyone to show up on December 30th for that case!!!!!

[Rick Masters]

I wouldn't want to be anyone in that courtroom except BobK. Not only was he falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned, the complaint was made in violation of of his civil rights. He was specifically targeted for harassment because of his outspoken efforts under the First Amendment to reveal impropriety and possible criminal behavior under City of San Diego auspices and, even more egregious, for his long-standing efforts to secure rights under law of a certain group of citizens. In my opinion, this elevates his case beyond false arrest and false imprisonment, and into the realm of stratospheric compensation.

False arrest
Appeals court: Police can't hold someone cited for infraction
April 10, 2013|By Maura Dolan
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/10 ... t-20130410

Police in California may not take into custody someone cited for a mere infraction unless the person lacks identification or refuses to sign a written promise to appear in court or provide a fingerprint, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for a man arrested for trespassing to obtain financial compensation from San Francisco for being hauled to the police station and searched before being released.

An infraction, which is less serious than a misdemeanor, is punishable by a fine and does not appear on a criminal record.

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from the 2000 arrest of Erris Edgerly after San Francisco police spotted him standing inside a playground near a housing project where he did not live. The fenced playground had “No Trespassing” signs at each entrance.

The police did a pat-down search and then took Edgerly to a police station, where he was searched again. No contraband was found, and police released him with a citation for trespassing. He was never prosecuted for the alleged offense.

Edgerly sued San Francisco and its Police Department for false arrest and an illegal search in violation of his civil rights. A district judge ruled that Edgerly’s arrest was proper, and a jury determined he had not been strip-searched.

In overturning the lower court’s decision on the arrest, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel said California’s penal code does not permit someone to be taken into custody for an infraction unless the person lacks identification or refuses to sign a paper to appear in court or provide a fingerprint.

The ruling, written by Judge Raymond C. Fisher, directed the district court to permit Edgerly to have his claim for damages heard by a jury.

[wingspan33]

UPDATE

I just got word that the City has dropped the trespassing charge against me.

It would have been difficult to prove "trespassing" in a public park where anyone is free to show up at any time. In order to prove "trespassing" they would have to have proved that there was some special reason to exclude me from the park ... which, of course, they cannot do.

YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY!





IMPORTANT MODERATOR NOTE:
The City has decided to not to charge Bob for trespassing (at this time), BUT the the Restraining Order case has NOT been dropped. Everyone planning to testify will still need to show up on December 30th for that case!!!!!

[Bob Kuczewski]

YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY!

It's not quite as joyful as that. After I got the call, I went down to the court to get the details. It turns out that the San Diego City Attorney has decided to not charge me with trespassing at this time. However, they are reserving the right to file charges - for this incident - any time within the next year. This doesn't sound right to me, but I'll be discussing it with my lawyer very soon.

In overturning the lower court’s decision on the arrest, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel said California’s penal code does not permit someone to be taken into custody for an infraction unless the person lacks identification or refuses to sign a paper to appear in court or provide a fingerprint. The ruling, written by Judge Raymond C. Fisher, directed the district court to permit Edgerly to have his claim for damages heard by a jury.

Thank goodness for higher courts!!

They had charged me with what appears to be "Misdomenor Trespassing" ... which I believe is a step or two above an "infraction". But this was in a public park that was NOT marked with "No Trespassing" signs. The only signage was the "Pilot's Only" area, and I was a paid-up and signed-in H4/P4 pilot. So the arrest itself was even more baseless than the fellow you mentioned.

IMPORTANT MODERATOR NOTE:
The City has decided to not to charge me for trespassing (at this time), BUT the the Restraining Order case has NOT been dropped. We still need everyone to show up on December 30th for that case!!!!!

[JoeF]

First-blush-feel speculation:
1. The behind-the-scenes people saw a resounding defeat coming.
2. The same parties do not want to risk getting on record all the points BobK would be making.
3. The same parties want to still press BobK by a kind of cloudy threat.
4. The same parties want to keep an unmerited aura of winning.
5. The potential of showing why immediate change of management of the port would serve the public may be something the parties want to suppress.

"can of worms" comes to mind; someone does not want to eat the worms.

Reading between the lines: BobK wins without having the benefit of the "day in court" that would bring change sooner than later.
To get things right, more time will be needed. The port concessionaire has been given some reprieve, some time to get his act together, so that just maybe a window might open for him to hold onto a means that should change hands.


~ JoeF

[Rick Masters]

They had charged me with what appears to be "Misdomenor Trespassing" ... which I believe is a step or two above an "infraction". But this was in a public park that was NOT marked with "No Trespassing" signs. The only signage was the "Pilot's Only" area, and I was a paid-up and signed-in H4/P4 pilot. So the arrest itself was even more baseless than the fellow you mentioned.

Yes. And Joe is on the money. You were COMPLETELY within your rights. They have nothing to stand on.

But if you leave now, they will believe they have won. You must take a reward. Only a reward will make them understand. Use the law.

[wingspan33]

And here's a good law to use -
(and previously posted)

California Civil Code Section 52.1

52.1. (a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color
of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or
attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
exercise or enjoyment by any individual . . . of rights secured by the
. . . laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney
or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other
appropriate equitable relief . . . in order to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action
brought . . . may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be
assessed individually against each person who is determined to
have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each
individual whose rights under this section are determined to have
been violated.
(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
by the . . . laws of this state, has been interfered with, or
attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision
(a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his
or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not
limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other
appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise
or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.

The failure of the City of San Diego to give Bob K his "day in court" and instead threaten him with the possible reissuing/reinstating of a charge (that has no basis to begin with) is the definition of intimidation and coercion.

[Bob Kuczewski]

A friend just contacted me to congratulate me. He had gotten the impression that the restraining order case had been dropped. IT HAS NOT. We still need all the witnesses to show up on December 30th for that case. That's actually the more important of the two cases because it puts us all in jeopardy of being "banned" with virtually no evidence. So I've added the following note to the previous celebration posts for clarity:

IMPORTANT MODERATOR NOTE:
The City has decided to not to charge Bob for trespassing (at this time), BUT the the Restraining Order case has NOT been dropped. Everyone planning to testify will still need to show up on December 30th for that case!!!!!

[wingspan33]

But, Bob, has the City ACTUALLY dismissed the Trespassing charge?

Or, are they (effectively) holding a possible reissuing of that charge over your head?

This is the kind of City of San Diego (connected with their police department) activity that comes off as corrupt. Definitely a corruption of JUSTICE!

Now where is that link that Joe put up for the FBI "Tip" web site? Oooh, I think I've got it!