No Apology to the Victims after Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson Reduces Murder to Manslaughter in Violation of Marsy’s Law

Alan Jackson provides no apology to victim's family and avoids returning reporter's phone calls.

Alan Jackson provides no apology to victim's family and avoids returning reporter's phone calls.

Alan Jackson and Arnold Schwarzenegger have much in common.  Two politicians breaking laws with reckless disregard for the victim’s family.  Both Alan Jackson and Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced murder sentences to just a few short years without notifying the victims and without allowing the victims to come forward and give victim impact statements.  Alan Jackson simply ignored reporters’ questions and blamed the detectives.  The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office spokesperson responded to the Antelope Valley press with excuses.  Marsy’s Law (Proposition 9) was co-authored by Steve Ipsen, Alan Jackson’s competition for the 2012 election for the elected Los Angeles District Attorney.

The Antelope Valley Press reports on Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson's run from the reporters after violating Marsy's Law.

FROM AV PRESS: ‘Something wrong with our justice system’
June 28, 2011

LANCASTER, CA

We know that Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson is running for the post of district attorney, but Friday he just seemed to be running from our phone calls.  We wanted to know why a Palmdale woman was literally crying to us about the plea-bargain deal her brother’s killer received.

It made no sense.  Joseph Azevedo, an aerospace worker, was murdered 30 years ago, and last year cops nabbed an Indiana truck driver named Christopher Winter and charged him with the crime. But as Valley Press Managing Editor Charles F. Bostwick reported Saturday, prosecutors struck a deal – a guilty plea in exchnge for a sentence of less than 6 years – and family members said they were unaware of it:  “Joseph Azevedo’s sister and nephew said the family was not told about a June 7 hearing in Los Angeles at which Christopher Winter, 55, was sentenced after being allowed to plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter and two counts of receiving stolen property.  

A murder charge carrying a potential death sentence or life in prison was dismissed.  ”Where is the justice? I can’t believe it after all these years,” Esmeralda Tirak of Palmdale said Friday.  “The guilty get away with murder, and the victims” she said, breaking into tears. “I can’t talk anymore.”  Michael Tirak, Azevedo’s nephew, said: “There’s something wrong with our justice system.”  After three decades, the family at least deserved the decency of a phone call to give them a chance to be there. Victims’ families usually speak in court to let the judge know the impact the loss of the loved one has had on friends and family.  

Deputy DA Jackson did not return our calls. A DA spokeswoman said she was told that Joseph Azevedo’s relatives had been informed by an investigator that Winter was expected to enter a plea to reduced charges that would let him avoid the death penalty, though she didn’t know if they had been told the hearing date.  The family members told us they were aware of a hearing and possible plea deal, but it had been postponed and they were never told the new date and a plea “to avoid the death penalty” is far cry from a plea for 6 years.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. Pingback: Alan Jackson declines to comment when asked by San Gabriel Valley Tribune about his violation of Marsy Law « crimevictims

  2. Pingback: Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson failed to notify the victims family and violates the California Constitution « crimevictims

  3. Pingback: Steve Ipsen “Fair and For the People” – Three strikes ballot measure faces public safety politics « crimevictims

  4. Look at Vern Pierson D.A El Dorado County! http://www.eldoradocountymentalhealth.com. The press keeps asking the question how mass murder originates. See Macias v. Ihde, 219 F.3d 1018, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2000):
    The Appellants contend that the district court “fundamentally misconstrued” the constitutional deprivation at issue in this case. They maintain that the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred when the defendants failed to provide Mrs. Macias with equal police protection in the months leading up to her death. Their brief states: 35

    The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants’] constitutional injury as `murder’ rather than `lack of equal protection.’ By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees’] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.

    Basically, this is how officials “cause murder,” the perfect crime. The Macias Case is very rare, and other similar cases are dismissed out of federal courts by “magistrate judges” who “fendamentaly misconstrue the case.”

    It happened to me. Fraud by Magistrates was explained by Sean Harrington, a successful litigator, who had a federal judge removed from the bench.

  5. Occupy Wall Street Sacramento, so far a very amiable protest, in a mob mentality sort of way, are intelligent people, who are tired of the wool being pulled overt there eyes. As an opponent of a two party system opponent, due to the “influence peddling” that is pretextual with hand picked party yes men, I skew the bias of the democrats or republican propaganda that makes no effort to bar the use of fallacy in attracting popularity.

    I think the key to understanding the root of societies problems, is understanding “rational basis theory,” taught in legal principles. Cornell Law, provides a great overview, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-474. Basically, you will logically directed to be aware that Wall Street, or any other entity, acts only due to a “rational basis” derived from law and supreme court precedence. If a citizen notices an irrational policy, all that is needed is to identify the elements and the simple task of a showing syllogisms that can reliably prove uncogent basis, which are irrational to logic and law.

    Political factions make uncogent premises palatable through the use of about 22 fallacies that can trick highly educated individuals, but more likely, minimally educated layman into following illogical and destructive policy, due to a personal benefit they may gain, regardless of the cause and effect.

    Government engaging in irrational decision making, have immunity from liability for such irrationality, or even corruption. The Constitution, according to S. Ct. precedence, Bogan v. Scott Harris 1998, makes “corruption a constitutional liberty and freedom” that when discovered, a citizen harmed, cannot exercise a “constitutional right” called the First Amendment, to restore by “redress of the grievance.” Bogan actually states, “…the law will not tolerate an action to redress the individual wrong which may have been done.” Id., at 599.4.” So this is an example of an uncogent precedent, but because the 11th amendment is their basis, as was the 13 amendment for slavery, insanity becomes a constitutional right in the U.S.A., and it protects the government from the people. This fact is not theory, yet the contrary is taught to all elementary students, and carried into higher education. Education is the key. The board of education has removed any curriculum that teaches the 11th amendment and a right of government to possess what only dictators murder and overthrow to posses, and that is what the Declaration called the “right inestimable and formidable tyrants. Webster call’s distinguishing factor, “absolute power, or sovereignty” that separates justice from the injustice of abuse of power wielded by dictators. In the U.S.A., in order to make justice “facially plausible” as a maxim in the U.S.A, we have title 18 USC 242, “Deprivation of Rights under the Color of law,” “willfully subjecting persons to deprivation of any rights.”

    That all sounds nice, and your average Joe or Jane reading this tripe would feel proud, and volunteer to die in the Middle East to preserve this right! However, they are actually preserving the 11th amendment which gives immunity to officials who profit off of negligence or corruption, and additionally by giving Wall Street Immunity. Yet the enforcement is jurisdictional at best. Sacramento Eastern District Court refuses to enforce this law in about 99% of claims, including civil cases 42 USC 1983 or 1985, among others.

    The courts have identified a narrow process where officials in “Municipalities,” cities or counties, can lose their immunity. This is explained by the Supreme Court in Bogan. The Ninth Circuit has elaborated on what the circumstances are that “abrogate” immunity. Kaahumanu v. City of Maui explained this in 2004, and the “corporate counsel” retrained their officials in order to preserve the rights of citizens, and minimize lawsuits that arbitrary power mongering officials generate by “depriving rights” in use permits, or unequal treatment of persons in intangible government services, see 18 USC 1346. Maui establishes that “ad hoc” decisions, when officials make “legislative” decisions to deny a permit to an individual, where others may have a permit for similar circumstances, “deprive rights” and violate due process and the First Amendment Petition Clause.

    Norse v. Santa Cruz 9th cir. 2010, in Santa Cruz, removed the desire for officials to limit this to “land use issues,” when Norse associated city counsel members as “Nazi’s, and was arrested due to the speech.

    In Sacramento or anywhere else, the “corporate counsel” is not training their officials about this precedence, and this opens the county for “failure to properly train” a cause of action for “deliberate indifference” to civil rights. A policy to maintain “deliberate indifference violates, U.S. Supreme Court precedence Monell v. City of New York.

    The downside is that if you want have a First Amendment Right, you have to pay a lawyer a 6 figure fee to get it. It is available only to the 1%. The courts establish that the 1% are the only citizens entitled to Due Process by making the fee for “redress” affordable, only to the 1%. Officials, and those who are friends of officials do not have to go through the courts, they are fixed, behind doors, or in the “Fabien Nunez” case, this is an example of this favoritism of officials over private citizen’s who must pay the uttermost farthing.

    I would hope that we start occupying the court houses. At that point, police would probably escalate the violence.

  6. Pingback: Victims CANNOT TRUST Alan Jackson for Los Angeles District Attorney: “I am a Liar” « crimevictims

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s