Got it now wrote:
Mr.Hernandaz: What we have become is there is no Mr.Smith looking out for us, its them and never for us. The Dinius case has shown they will sacrifice us to protect one of their own. I am truly sorry for the pain you fell.Hang in there and try to see officer Rivero in the sheriff department.Good luck.PS tell your friends.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on
soon after as the matter may be heard, Defendant Edgar Hernandez, through counsel, will
move this court for an order setting aside failure to appear charges.
The District Attorney and the Officer have manipulated this case to the benefit
of the Color of Authority. The factors relating to the crime are perceived by California
Court Rule 4.423.(a) 1 through 9 are as follows:
The Officer was an initiator of the willing defendant who became a participant where the
defendant played a minor role in the crime. The crime itself was committed because of the
statement of being beaten down by two cops could of brought provocation by the officer,
where any other consensual encounter is unlikely to recur. The defendant was involved in
criminal conduct that can be partially excusable from an escalated environment by the
police officer, creating a scenario where the defendant had no apparent predisposition to do
such a crime, and was induced by the Officer to participate in the crime. The defendant
exercised caution to the officer stating “you are making me nervous walking up on me.” to
avoid harm to the Officer or damage to property witch turned out small, and no harm was
done or any threat was issued to the Officer who states is the victim in this case. The
defendant believed that he had a claim and mistakenly believed that the conduct was legal in
their mental disability. The Officer slamming the body and head of the defendants
motivated the defendant. Where the defendant took action of slamming own head of the
motivated attack. The defendant has suffered from repeated altercations of control and
continous physical movements inflicted by the Officer whom has relations to the Sheriffs
Office of Lake whit in the 1616 years of being an Officer. This case shows the tactics used
pursuant to the allegations in the Lake County Sheriffs Office. Also Tubbs lane is
driven by the defendant six days a week traveling to and from work. The Lake county
Police interrogated the defendant whom stated that work is conducted in Santa Rosa, and
home is in Lake County. Tubbs lane is the main traveled road to Santa Rosa by the
defendant. The interrogation of Officer Hearn will provide the information stated. Tubbs
Lane would create a perfect location for profiling the Defendant, a tactic used in the LCSO
training guide. Also the Defendant did, not state this statement of “just shoot me,” This
report submitted by Officer Hearn in the Habeas Motion to show replication of an
existing allegation. This supplemental report is forged and the defendant can show that in
reference to the dispatch time line report.
The factors relating to the defendant are perceived by California Court Rule 4.423.
(b) 1 through 6 is as follows:
The defendant has really no prior record of violence, or has an insignificant record of
criminal conduct, considering the regency and frequency of prior Lake County’s false
allegations and was suffering from a mental and physical condition that significantly
reduced the culpability for the alleged crime. That the defendant didn’t acknowledged
wrongdoing before or after the arrest. Two cop cars two cameras, no video tape, no
statement, no investigation report. The Defendant is shown to be ineligible for probation
and but for that ineligibility would have been granted probation. The Defendant has stated
to pay restitution to the Officer if any expenses occurred. The Defendant on prior
performance on probation or parole was satisfactory