Appeal Case No. 07-56600, Case No. SACV 04-00282

Appeal Case No. 07-56600, Case No. SACV 04-00282, brought by a homeless woman against the Tri-City police departments was decided in the Defendant-Appellees favor on September 15, 2010: What happened: Plaintiff Appellant, Pro-Se, Nancy Wood had been hit up for money by Garden Grove Police Officer Defendant Appellee Perkins, under threat of arrest, several times over a year, in 2002; when it became apparent that she was neither going to fork over cash, or put out for the other defendants, Perkins had another officer hand Wood a quarter from a car, and arrested her under a misdemeanor municipal code for panhandling that carries an 18 month sentence. The case was dismissed in the lower court after Wood was incarcerated for two weeks. She brought a section 1983 Claim against Garden Grove for false imprisonment, also alleging that she was hit in the face by the officer, during the arrest, resulting in partial loss of her sight, she was also strip searched; she filed for conspiracy under Monell. The case remained in court for seven years, handed up the hierarchical ladder by a Mexican paralegal, on a work visa, in charge of magistrate rulings, who's concept of civil rights is that the poor should not have any, and whose final determination was a 'cut and paste' composition lifted from a 2005 motion to dismiss submitted by the Garden Grove City Attorney, which was eventually reaffirmed as the Ninth Circuit's determination in the case. By tracing the case from it's inception one can see that the courts purpose was to justify unlawful actions by law enforcement: The original claim contained a verbatim transcript of the unlawful arrest. Most telling is the fact that the Court denied Wood's petition for counsel, leaving her to fend for herself against three law firms, concluding the case with, "The district court adopted the magistrate judges report and recommendation, concluding that Wood's Third Amended Complaint consisted solely 'of a mixture of irrelevant facts, rambling sentences and confusing allegations,' that failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm."  Wood rebutted the Court's 'confused rambling panhandler' theory, in a Petition for Rehearing, filed October 10, 2010, in which she pointed out that the supposed 'ramblings' were, in fact, written by Patrick Adams, who is an esteemed legal professional, not a 'confused rambling panhandler.' Wood also posed that the courts were demonstrably biased at both levels; reiterating, alluding to her denied petition for counsel, that, "Plaintiff-Appellant is Pro-Se, and does not understand the effect, purpose, or intent of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The most reasonable means of compensating, for this obvious hurtle to justice, is granting advisory counsel so that the effect, purpose, and intent of the Rules are furthered and justice may be served. Plaintiff-Appellant Wood has in forma pauperis status and is indigent, per 28 U.S.C. sec 1915 (e)(1). Appointed counsel would have put all of the facts before the Court in the required manner; the court did not want that; because that would eliminate the opportunity to dismiss Wood, as "confused and rambling." Wood asserted that the court continually turns the law against paupers who seek recourse; she pointed out that no homeless pro-se plaintiffs, or appellants have ever prevailed in the same courts. Wood further admonished that, "Because of the Internet, the court no longer has the power to take justice out of the hands of the people, by thumbing its nose at the victims of civil rights abuses; using dismissive labels such as, 'confused rambling panhandler,' or with a lag time of seven years: (citing a recent decision regarding the Internet) On March 10,2010, Anthony Graber posted a U-Tube of his own arrest, and was charged with four felonies and faced a maximum of 16 years in prison, including, 'Recording an Officer Without Consent,' leading to cause for search and seizure, and confiscation of his electronic equipment: He was arrested and incarcerated for 26 hours. On September 27, 2010, the charges against Anthony Graber were dropped by Harford County Circuit Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr. ruling that the Maryland wiretap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected, a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy. According to the decision, "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public when we exercise that power in public force we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation." Wood acknowledged that she would have submitted the actual recording of the arrest in which the officer did, in fact, violate her civil rights, in exactly the manner that she complained of, however, she had missed the filing deadline by several days, as a result of being detained in an unlawfully conducted sweep of homeless camps, by the Orange PD, during which she was threatened with arrest for making a video. Stay Tuned, the conclusion of the case will be posted shortly, as it unfolds.